8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/10
xcommunication
in the Home
Reverend ltVayne Rogers
- P1 0'V'idence resbyterian
Church RPCUS
Richard
Ganz in
his
Our purpose in
this
study
book,
20 Controversies That is
not,
however, to
address
Almost
Killed A
Church
- Paul's
the
biblical bas is for church
Counsel
to
the Corinthians
and the Church
Today,
wrote concerning I Cor. 5,
that many
churches are
like
the Corinthians,
they
pat
themselves
on the back
for
being a great
church
..but
they
do
nothing about
sin. And,
if a minister or elders try to
practice church discipline,
they
may find themselves
put
out
of
the
church.
He reminds us
that
Jonathan
Edwards, one of
the most
influential preachers
since
John
Calvin, was expelled
from
his
church
by a vote of
231-23 for saying that people
who were involved in open,
untepentant sin could
not
take
the
Lord's Supper. Edwards
said
there was 'going
to
be discipline
for sin.
John
Calvin was also
thrown out of Geneva
when
he tried
to
practice church
discipline. Ganz observes,
If
Jonathan
Edwards and
John Calvin can be thrown
out
of their churches, how
many
pastors
a ue safe? l
discipline, Mat. 18, I Cor. 5,
the
various forms
or
degrees
of church discipline,
or the
purposes' of church discipline.
All of
these
have been
sufficiently set forth in Books
of Church Order or
the
Forms
of
Government
of various
Reformed and
Presbyterian
denomiriations. Our concern
in this study is the application
of excommunication by
the
church in
the
home. How
are
those who have been
excommunicated by the
church
to be treated and
regarded by other members of
their family, especially
those
who stil l live
in
the home?
I have been surprised at
the
scarcity of directions
and applications of
excommunication
in the
family context. Perhaps that is
because it is assumed that
what
is
required
on
the
ecclesiastical
level, do
not
associate with,
do not
eat
with, purge
the
immoral person from
your
midst, 1 Cor. 5:9, 11, 13, is
commonly
understood
to apply
to
the
home as well. From my
experience, I doubt this is so,
especially
since
Christians
do not even agree on how to
apply excommunication on
the ecclesiastical level, much
less the home. Therefore,
I would like to pffer some
exposition
and
application
of excommunication to
the covenant home.
Let me add
that
this
is no mere academic interest
on my
part.
I, as a pastor and
family member, have had to
deal with this on a personal
level, giving direction and
counsel both to the
church
and
to families with regard
to
excommunications
in
their family. Within
my
own
extended family, I have had
to address and deal with this
subject on at least three, nay,
four, occasions. This is a search
for the biblical and godly
practice of
church
discipline
with the hope and faith that
God will bless our faithful
practice to the repentance
The
Gotlnsel of GhalcedO lL
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/10
and re storation of those who,
not only in our churches,
but
also
in our
falnilies, have
been exconllnunicated.
I feel I n1ust
state
for
the
record that eXCOllllnUllication,
as a form of discipline, the
most extrelne form, is a loving
aot. Vvh01n the Lord loves
he disciplines," Heb. 12:6,
Provo 3:12.
I t
shows how far
Christians have departed
from biblical principles
that
they cannot
and
do
not regard discipline and
excommunication as an act of
love.
It
is
not
only
an
act
of
love for
the
sinning brother,
but it
is
an act
of love for
the
Christ, who said,
If
you love
me keep Iny conllnandments,"
John
14:15. Vve love Hiln, His
conllnandnlents, His nalne,
His holiness, which have been
dragged into
the
Inud by
the
professing
and
sinning brother.
There are times when we
must decide between
Christ
and
even a fatnily Inember.
Jesus said, "Do not
think
that I catne to bring peace on
earth. I did not con1e to bring
peace
but
a sword. For I have
come to 'set a Inan against h'is
father, a daughter against
her
mother, and a daughter-in-law
against
her
n10ther-in-lav/;
and 'a man's enelnies will be
those of his own household."
Matthew 10:34-36. (See also
Luke
12:49-53).
"'Vhoever
does the will of God,
he
is
my brother,
and
sister, and
mother," Mark 3:35. Discipline,
exconllnunication, is also an
act
of love for
the
church,
His bride, Eph. 5:25-27. It
is
an
aCt of love for a sinful
and dying world as well. By
discipline we delnonstrat e
the sinfulness of sin
and
its
Natio ns
Ghrist's
isciples
judglnent
and that outside
of Christ there is no hope.
How
then
should we apply
exconllnunication
in the
falnily
context?
The
Bible clearly
speaks of exconll11unication,
Mat. 18, I Cor. 5.
It naturally
does so in the eoclesiastical
context. Jesus said concerning
the
brother who will
not
listen to one, to two
or
three,
or to
the
church, Let hinl
be
to you as a Gentile and
a
tax
collector," Mat. 18:15.
Paul wrote to
the Corinthians
conoerning
the
l11an
who was
guilty of sexual inll11orality,
Let hin1 who has done this
be
removed frol11 among you," I
Cor. 5:2; "deliver
this
l11an to
Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, so
that
his spirit
l11ay be
saved
in
the day of
the
Lord,"
vs. 5; "Do not associate
vdth
sexually inll110ral people ...
with anyone who bears
the
nat11e of brother if he is guilty of
sexual
inllnorality
or
greed, ....
not
even to eat with such a
one; .... Purge the evil person
fr0111 at110ng you," 5:9, 11, 13.
It
is one thing
to
speak
of exconllnunication
in the
context of church relationships,
not to "eat with"
S0111eone
who
has been exconll11unicated, but
what if the exconll11unicated
one is a husband, a wife, a
father
or
n10ther?
'Vhat
if
they
are a child, a son or a daughter?
How is exconll11unication to
be applied in the h01ne? To be
sure, that is often
not
an issue
because the
exconll11unicated
person is often
exconll11unicated for leaving
their
wife, husband, fal11ily,
and
the
church,
and they are no
longer
in
the h01ne
or
have any
Exco?1t1Jl.unication in the 110nw
desire
to oontinue in
fellowship
with
the
church.
There are
some cirCUlnstanoes where
Christians l11ay work with
exconll11unioated
l11el11bers,
however, or
be
in other sooial
oontexts
and they nlust
consider
the il11plioations and
application of exconllllunication
in
that situation. However, .
there are son1e
circlllnstanoes
where
an
exconll11unicated
person still lives at h0111e.
Vve
hear
several responses
fron1
Christians
conoerning
exconllllunioation,
both in the
ecclesiastical as well as
the
fal11ilial context.
S0111e assert
that when
Jesus
said
we
are
to
regard excollln1unicated
people
as Gentiles and tax oolleotors,
since
Jesus ate and drank
with
sinners, we, therefore,
l11ay eat
with
them, at
least
to
evangelize
then1. Others
state
that not
eating
with
then1 is lil11ited to
the Lord's Supper, therefore,
exconll11unication does
not
apply to the social or fal11ily
context. Outside
the
worship of
the
church we l11ay, therefore,
eat and
drink with
thel11. Sonle
even suggest that as long as we
don't eat with those who have
been exconu11unicated, ,ve can
still socialize with thel11, get
together
to play golf, go fishing,
go on vacation together, etc.
Bet,veen
lunch
and supper,
therefore,
or
after
supper,
we can engage in normal
social activities with
thel11
and
talk
a
bout
the weather,
the
world, work, sports, etc.,
just don't eat with them
How should we, in the
light of
such
considerations
and conll11ents, relate to
those in our fal11ily who have
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/10
Excom municat ion
in
the Home
lovingly
and
biblically been
excommunicated that their
souls
may be
saved
in
the
day of
our
Lord, I Cor. 5:5?
1
Not eating with
excommunicated persons
applies to
the
personal as
well as the ecclesiastical
relationship. What is said
on
the
ecclesiastical level
concerning
excommunication
applies on the personal, social,
and family level. Indeed, the
Bible does not make the
kind
of distinction we often make
between
church and
family
in
this
case. There are certainly
biblical distinctions between
the responsibilities and
authority of
the
home, family,
and church which are to
be
recognized and observed, but,
fundamentally, the Christian
is not
to
have fellowship
with
an
excommunicated
person regardless of his
family relationship.
Dr. George Knight,
OPC Minister and professor
at
Greenville Theological
Seminary, in a paper
on
Biblical
Church Discipline, wrote,
There must be
a
common
mind that the unrepentant
sin
needs to
break
the fellowship to
such
an
extent
(and Paul goes
on
to say this)
that it
involves
also
not
eating with them 1
Cor. 5:11),
because
that
is
the
closest
and most intimate
fellowship that we experience
in
our
social interrelationships
-- so close
and
so
intimate
and
so significant that for
Christians
it's usually preceded,
sometimes followed, by a word
of grace. Some exegetes write
that this ('do not eat with')
means that we should
not
allow
him
to the Lord's Supper.
He
can no longer commune as a
fellowshipping member of the
church. Certainly,
that
would
be
included. But is
that
what
Paul is speaking about? Is it
not
a further explication of
what it means
not
to associate
with him, explication which
is
set in the context in
which
Paul relates
this
association
to
the
social
intercourse
with pagan neighbors? It is
in
that
arena,
not
that of the
church's gathering for worship,
but
of social intercourse.
And
therefore,
the
eating
must
be taken in the same
arena. Christians may and
do eat with a pagan, 1 Cor.
5:10,
but
they should
not eat
with this
unrepentant one
who claims to be a brother
and is being disciplined.
Knight
continues,
Finally,
with reference to the offender,
we have the words of 2 Thess.
3:14,
If
anyone
does
not
obey
our instruction in this letter,
take
special
note
of him. Do
not
associate with
him, in
order
that he may feel ashamed.'
What
should
he feel ashamed
of? His
sin
and its
consequence
for
him,
namely, to be excluded
from
the
fellowship of God's
people. If the church fails to
discipline
an unrepentant
sinner, he will not
experience
the
disciplinary
action
which
God
has
ordained to bring
about the result. He may not,
therefore, repent, and he
may
not, therefore, be brQught back
into
the fellowship of God and
His people. It is
the
church's
responsibility to see that he
feels that
shame,
the shame on
the
horizontal
level of excluding
him
from the fellowship of
God's people
so
that
he may
be brought to shame on the
vertical level and be ashamed
of his sin before God. To use
the
language of the Confession,
the
censure
is 'necessary'
to accomplish this end.
On I Cor. 5:9 and 11
John Calvin wrote:
... He reminds the
Corinthians of what he
had
already enjoined upon them -
that they
should refrain from
intercourse
with the wicked.
For
the
word
rendered
to keep
company with, means to be
on
terms
of familiarity with
anyone,
and to be'in habits of
close
intimacy
with
him
...
In short, then, he prohibits
the Corinthians
from holding
intercourse
with those
who, while professing to be
believers, do, nevertheless, live
wickedly and to the dishonor
of God.
'Let
all
that
wish to
be reckoned brethren, either
live holily and becomingly,
or
be
excommunicated
from the society,of the
pious, and let all the good
refrain from intercourse and
familiarity with them .. .
What
he means, then, is
this: If anyone is reckoned a
brother among you,
and
at the
same time
leads a wicked life,
and such as is unbecoming
a Christian, keep aloof from
his
society.' In short, being
called a brother, means here a
false profession, which has no
corresponding reality ...With
such an one not
even to take
food.
In the
first place, we must
ascertain
whether he
addresses
here
the whole Church, or
The Counsel
q
Ghalcedon
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
4/10
merely individuals. I answer,
that
this is said, indeed, to
individuals, but,
at
the same
time,
it
is connected with their
discipline in con1n10n; for the
power of exconlnlunicating is
not allowed to any individual
member, but to the entire body.
When, therefore,
the
Church
has exconll11unicated anyone,
no believer ought to receive
him into ternlS of intimacy
with him; otherwise the
authority of the Church would
be brought into contempt,
if each individual were
at
liberty to
ad111it
to his table
those who have been excluded
from the table of
the
Lord ....
By
partaking
of food here, is
meant either living together, or
familiar association
in
n1eals.
.... What Paul
means
is, that,
in so far as it is in
our
power,
we are to shun the society of
those Wh0111 the Church has
cut off fr0111
her
c0111munion.
2.
The conln1and not
eat
with is
not
limited to
the act
of not participating in a meal
with then1.
t
includes social
association
and
fellowship.
To
not eat with is
l110re
than not
partaking of food with someone.
The key to understanding
the con1111and of verse (1 Oor.
5) 9 according to the Wycliffe
Bible Oon1111entary, 'is the
verb
to
c0111pany
with'
(vv.
9, 11), which n1eans literally
to n1ix
up
together with (of.
Arndt and Gingrich, Greek
English Lexicon, p. 792). The
thought is that of familiar
fellowship. The apostle knew
that sonle fellowship with
the world USt
take
place
in the
daily pursuits
of
life.
However, the brother under
the NaUons
Ghrist s Disciples
discipline was to be denied
fellowship, and particularly
were the believers not to eat
with such an one,
the
nlost
obvious act of fellowship. 2
On this passage, Matthew
Henry wrote, ... And therefore
on this occasion
he
tells
them
that i
any nlan called
a brother,
anyone
professing
Christianity,
and
being a
nlember of a Ohris tian church,
were a fornicator, or covetous,
or an idolater, or a railer,
that
they
should not keep c0111pany
with hin1,
nor
so
111uch
as
eat
with
such
a one. They were to
avoid all fat11iliarity with
hit11;
they were to have no con1n1erce
with hin1; they were to have
no
con1111erce
with hit11: but,
that
they
nlight shame hit11,
and bring hin1 to repentance,
must disclait11 and shun
hit11.
Note, Henry continues,
Christians are to avoid the
fa111iliar
conversation of
fellow-Christians that are
notoriously wicked,
and
under
just
censure
for
their
flagitious
practices. Such disgrace the
Christian nanle. They
111ay
call
themselves brethren in Christ,
but they
are not
Christian
brethren. They are only
it
conlpanions for the brethren in
iniquity; and to such c0111pany
they should be left, till
they
nlend
their
ways
and
doings.
Matthew Henry, again,
states, Every Christian is
bound to
judge
the111
unfit
for conll11union and fa111i1iar
converse. They are to
be
punished, by having this n1at-k
of disgrace
put
upon the111,
that they
111ay
be
sha111ed,
and, i possible, reclait11ed
EXc01nntu nication in
the
Bonte
thereby:
and
the l110re because
the
sins of
such nluch
l110re
dishonor God than
the sins
of the openly wicked and
profane can do. The
church
therefore is obliged to clear
herself
fr0111
all
confederacy
with
the111,
or
connivance at
the111, and to bear testin10ny
against
their
wicked practices.
Note,
though the
church
has
nothing to do with those
Without, it
111USt
endeavor
to
keep clear of the guilt and
reproach of
those
within.
The New Bible Con1111entary3
on
I Cor. 5:11,13
states
..
they are to withdraw fr0111
any
Christian
who is sexually
it11moral. ... Table fellowship was
prohibited ....
the
con11nunity
is to expel the inll110ral person
fr0111
their 1nidst, a point
Paul e111phasizes by citing Dt.
17:7.
The
author concludes
with these words,
The ease
with which the present
day
church
often
passes
judgn1ent
on the ethical
or
structural
111isconduct of the outside
con1111unity is at tit11es 111atched
only by its reluctance to
take action to re1nedy
the
ethical
conduct
of its own
111embers. Vve have reversed
Paul's order of things.
Eating with S0111eone was
and
is l110re
than
partaking
of a meal
with
S0111eone.
It
is
an
expression of social
and personal friendship,
fellowship, and acceptance.
Thus,
not eating
with
S0111e0l1e
is nluch broader
than
n1erely
avoiding
or
denying dinner
con1panionship. Paul does not
only say do not eat with
but
have no association with. As
DaVid
Garland
writes
in
his
11
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
5/10
Excommunication in the Home
commentary on I Corinthians
5, Eating together
connoted
more than friendliness in
ancient
culture;
it
created
a
social bond. When Christians
ate together, it reinforced
and
confirmed the solidarity
established by their
shared
confess ion of faith
in
Christ.
Refusing to
eat
with fellow
Christians
guilty of
such
acts
breaks all social ties
with
them
as
well as excludes
them
from the Lord's Supper.
This
exclusion may
seem
harsh
and intolerant, a reversion
to
the narrow
separatism of
the
Pharisees,
but
Christians
who
are no different morally
from unbelievers blur the
clear
distinctions between
the church
and the
world
and
destroy
their
testimony
to
God's transforming
power in their lives." 4
Jay Adams, in his
Handbook of Church Discipline,
helps
us
to apply this:5 The
congregation may no longer
fellowship with him as
though
nothing were wrong. They are
told, 'Don't mix,
or
mingle, with
him' 2 Thessalonians
3:
14; 1
Corinthians
5:9, 11 ),'withdraw
from him' 1 Thess. 3:6; the
word translated 'Withdraw,'
means 'stand aloof; keep away
from'), and 'don't eat' with
him,
1 Corinthians 5:11. All
these
commands
(they
are not
good advice,.but commands)
say
one and the same thing,
the congregation 'must
regard
the
so-called
brother
1 Cor. 5:11) 'as a brother' 2
Thessalonians 3: 15),
but as
one whose status is
in
question.
(There IS some doubt about
whether
he is really a brother,
because he fails to heed the
admonition of
the brethren
and the authority of Christ
exercised by His officers
in
the
church;
by
the
time
the
entire
congregation begins its task, he
has gone very far in his willful
disobedience
and
contumacy.)
"But what does withdrawal
mean?
t
means
that if John
calls Bill and suggests that
they
playa
round
of golf on
Monday, Bill will reply by
saying
something
like this:
"John, there's nothing I'd rather
do. But
there
is a problem.
You
are
under
the
discipline
of the church and have not
repented. I would be happy
to spend that, time with you
on Monday talking about
the
problem instead." Martha
asks Jill to go shopping with
her. Her reply is
the
same.
"Not
to eat means
two
things, according to Adams:
(1). That normal fellowship is
broken. Eating with another,
in biblical times, was the
sign of fellowship; 2)
That
the offender is forbidden to
partake of the Lotd's Supper
because, according to I
Corinthians 10:16-17, partaking
is "communion"
or
fellowship;
the very thing prohibited
at
stage 4
If he
refuses to
heed the officers and
their
admonitions , Paill says that
he must
be
removed from
table fellowship
and
all
other
forms of
normal
fellowship in
order
to
shame him
into
repentance. 2Thess 3.14."6
In his
commentary on
I II
Corinthians, Adams puts it this
way, "Indeed, I was speaking
particularly about mingling
with 'so-called' Christians
who are living immorally'
(vs. 11) .... Normal relations,
'mingling,' are not proper.
Eating, sh0pping together,
playing golf, etc., as
though
nothing were the matter, should
be
out of the question."7
What
about the
fact that
Jesus ate and drank with
publicans and sinners? We are
told that we are to
treat
them as
you would any other unbeliever
when they
are
"removed from
the
midst ." How do we treat
unbelievers? We evangelize
them 8 However, one of the
current ways of "evangelizing"
unbelievers is eating with them,
taking
them
out
to lunch. So,
should we
not eat
with them,
take them out to lunch,
in
order
to to evangelize them?
This is
to
read into
the'
text
or
excommunication a
contemporary
practice
and
approach
that
would not have
been understood or practiced in
biblical days. When Jesus said
to treat them as Gentiles and
tax
collectors" he was saying
to treat them as people you
do not have fellowship with,
do not associate with, identify
with. If,
after
reading 1 Cor. 5
you'continue to
chapter
6
and
further, you'will get a sense
of
the
moral gulf between
believers and unbelievers
and
why
there
can
be
no
fellowship with "unbelievers."
1
Corinthians
6:9-11, "Do you
not know that
the
unrighteous
will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived.
Neither fornicators,nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
homosexuals,
nor
sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous,
The ounsel Qf halcedon
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
6/10
110r drunkards, nor revilers,
nor
extortioners will
inherit
the
kingdotll of God. 11 And
suoh were SOll1e of you. But
you were washed,
but
you
were sanotified,
but
you were
justified in the nanle of the
Lord Jesus and by
the
Spirit of
our God."
1 Corinthians 6 : 1 5 ~ 1 6 HDo
you
not
know
that
your bodies
are
nlenlbers of Christ? Shall
I
then
take the 111enlbers
of Christ and make thenl
111embers of a harlot? Certainly
not
Or
do you
not
know
that
he who is joined to a harlot is
one body with her? For the
two," He says, "shall beOotlle
one flesh.'"
1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee
sexual inlnl0rality. Every sin
that a 111an does is outside
the
body,
but
he who Ootllnlits
sexual inlnl0rality sins against
his own body."
2
Corinthians
6:14-18,
Do
not be
unequally yoked
together with unbelievers.
For
what
fellowship
has
righteousness with lawlessness?
And
what
oonlnlunion
has
light with darkness? And what
aooord has
Christ
with Belial?
Or
what part has a believer
with
an
unbeliever? And what
agreelllent has the temple of
God with idols? For you
are
the telllple of the living God.
As
God
has said: 'I will dwell in
thenl And walk atllong thenl.
I will be
their
God, And
they
shall
be My
people.' Therefore
'Conle out frotll atllong thetll
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not
touoh what is unolean,
And I will reoeive you.' 'I will
be a Father to you, And you
the Nations Christ s Disoiples
shall be
My
sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Ahllighty.'"
The issue in Mat. 18
and
I Cor. 5 is a totally different
oontext and oonoern
than
Jesus' eating
with
sinners
(Mat. 11:19, Luke 15:2). Sinlon
Kistemaker,
in
his oonl111ent(lxy
on
I Corinthians states, In an
Eastern sooiety, established
nonllS of hospitality
111ight
not
be broken. To not offer food
to a relative,
an
aoquaintanoe,
a friend, or a guest oould be
interpreted
as a declaration of
war.
The
parable of
the
friend
at
111idnight indioates
that
a
host would be willing to inour
his neighbor's displeasure in
an
effort to obtain food for
his guest (Luke 11:5-8).
In
a reversal of the established
nornlS, Jesus often ate with tax
oolleotors and
sinners and
was
oalled their friend (Matt. 11:19;
Luke 15:2)-and
soandalized
the religious leaders. Then,
what
is
the point
of Paul's
injunotion ("do
not
eat with
suoh a one," 1 Cor. 5:11)?
The 111atter oonoerns ohuroh
disoipline.
Jesus instruoted
his
followers that his presoribed
prooedure for exoonl111unioation
nlight result in a ootllplete
separation of the
Christian
OOnl1l1Unity and the offending
sinner
(Matt. 18:17).
The sinner
is a blot on
the
integrity of the
ohuroh (Ootllpare II Peter 2:13;
Jude 12). Suoh a sinner must
be excluded fr0111
Christian
fellowship. Then he
111ay
learn
to see the error of his way,
repent, and
return
to the faith
(ootl1pare II Thess. 3:14-15)."9
The eXootlllllunioated, Paul
says, are
to be
taken away
frotll your
111idst,
I Cor. 5:2,
"delivered over to Satan, 5;5,
EXCOl1ununioation
in the J lo1ne
expelled fr0111 your 111idst,"5:13.
In 1 Corinthians 5:13, Paul
cites, or
at
lease alludes to one
of
the
passages
in
Deuteron0111Y,
"expel
the
wioked
an fr0111
al110ng
you." Paul's concluding
statement,
"Expel
the
evil
an frotll anl0ng you," is a
line frotll the Soriptures, the
OT. The
text
with a slight
variation appears repeatedly
in Deuteron0111Y: Deut. 17:7,
19.19, 21.21, 22.24, 24.7. Paul
applies in the ecclesiastical
context what DeuterononlY
applied
in the judicial or
civil
context. The
unrepentant
brother
should be excluded
frotll the fellowship of God
i
he oonl111its a high-handed
or
unrepentant sin. The language
Paul uses to describe
the
action
they should take is graphic and
specifio: "expel" in verse 13,
not associate with"
in verse
9;
and put out of your fellowship"
in verse 2. In the words of
George Knight, "He's
describing
an
aotion that breaks fellowship
with the
unrepentant brother
which is 1110re than a conlnl0n
and passing or incidental
social intercourse with
people in
the
public arena."
Paul is applying Deut. 17:7
and "expelling ..." to
the
ecclesiastical context. The
Corinthians were to take
deoisive action. Paul
uses and
applies a phrase frotll the OT
whioh
111eant
to
put
to death.
Vve
are
to
practice
on the
ecolesiastical
and
personal
level
what
the civillllagistrate
praotices on
the
judicial level;
we are
to treat
thenl as though
dead. Note, the words of
the
father of the prodigal
son
in
Luke 15:24, "For this Illy son
Continued
on
age
16
13
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
7/10
xcommunication in the orne
was dead, and is alive again.
As long
as
he was away,
he
was
dead; now that
he
has
repented
and
returned he
is alive again.
Significantly,
John
Calvin,
on this verse, differed with
Chrysostom.
Chrysostom,
says Calvin, compares
the rigor of
the
law with
the
mildness
of
the
gospel,
inasmuch as Paul was satisfied
with
excommunication in the
case
of
an
offense for which
the
law
required
the
punishment
of
death.
Calvin responds, But
for this there is no just ground.
For Paul is not
here
addressing
judges that
are armed
with
the sword; but an tl-narmed
multitude
that
was allowed
merely to make use of brotherly
correction; In
other
words,
in a Christian state,
he
would
be put to death; however, the
extent of the authority of the
church is excommunication.
3 .The
excommunicated person
is to be purged, banished,
from
the
fellowship of the
people
of God, I Cor. 5:13.
Anthony Thiselton on 5:13, '
writes: The double use of
the
Greek
word 'ex'
or
'ek'
requires
a strong word
such
as banish. ,10 Matthew Henry
stated, Therefore put away
from among
yourselves that
wicked
person,
v.
13. Cast him
out of
your
fellowship, and
avoid his conversation. ll
The
Jamieson, Fausset,
Brown (JFB) Critical
Commentary,
on I Cor.
5:13
states,
put away
from among yourselves
that wicked -Sentence of
excommunication in
language
taken from Deut. 24:7.
12
C. S. Keener
in
the IVP Bible
Background Commentary,
wrote
on
I Cor 5:13, The Old
Testament
often
commanded
God's people to purge evildoers
from among
their
ranks,
normally
by
execution (Deut
13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,
24; 24:7). Otherwise, the
unrepentant
offender could
remove God's blessing from
the
whole community and bring
about
the
death
of others (Josh
7:5, 25). Here the evildoer is
purged
from the
community
by
being banished;
banishment
was a
common
punishment in
the Roman period. In Judaism,
exclusion from
the community
was a spiri tual equivalent of
execution, applied
in the
New
Testament period to capital
crimes of the Old
TestamentP
4. Excommunication does
not mean
that
all contact
and
relationships are severed
with the excommunicated
person.
What
i one who is
excomJ;llunicated comes to
church?
What i I am dining
at a
restaurant
where an
excommunicated member
is
also dining?
What
i I work
with
an excommunicate?
What if
my husband or
wife
is excommunicated, or
my
son
or
daughter? We do not
believe that excommunication
severs, annuls , or abrogates
all familial, domestical,
social,
or
civil relations.
While the
predominantly
Presbyterian
Westminster
Assembly was
meeting
in
England, the Congregationalists
of New England met in
Synod
at
Cambridge, Mass,
from 1646-1648.
Apart
from
their differences
concerning
congregationalism, they
were in agreement with
the
Westminster Standards. Besides
this
they
offered a
much
more detailed
statement on
church
discipline:
Chapter
4,
Paragraph 5 of The Cambridge
Platform,
Chapter
XIV - Of
Excommunication and
Other
Censures, states:
While the offender remains
excommunicate,
the
church
is to refrain from all member
like
communion
with
him
in
spiritual things,
and
also from
all familiar communion with
him in
civil things,
further
than the n ~ e s s i t y of
natural
or domes tical or civil relations
do require; and are therefore to
forbear
to eat
and
drink
with
him, that he may be ashamed.
There are
some
necessary
civil, natural,
and
domestic relations which
remain. Concerning
the
excommunicate, as
the
Form
6f Process of the General
Assembly of
the
Church
of
Scotland, April 18, 1707,
Chapter
3, Par.
17
states,
the
people
are
to
be
warned that
they
hold
that
person to be
cast
out
of the church,
and
that
they shun
all
unnecessary
converse with
him or
her,
nevertheless, exoommunication
dissolveth not
the
bonds of
civil or
natural
relations,
nor
exempts from
the
duties of
them. Excommunication
does not annul, separate, or
divorce
marriage
partners;
or abrogate their domestic
relationship, duties, and
obligations as husband and
wife or
parents and
children.
a. Does excommunication
mean that we refuse
the
necessities of life to
the
excommunicated?
The Oounsel o halceclon
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
8/10
Calvin on I Cor. 5:11,
wrote,
The
ROluan antichrist ,
not
content
with this severity,
has burst
forth
into
interdicts,
prohibiting
anyone
fr0111
helping one
that has been
eX00l1ll11Unioated
to food,
or
fuel, or drink, or any other of
the supports
of life (He)
(Has in his fury gone so far as
to issue forth prohibitiol1s and
threatenings - 'Let no one be
so daring as
to
give n1eat, or
drink, or fuel, to the man who
has
been
exoon1n1unioated, or
to help him in any way with
the
things necessary
for
the
present life.' Calvin responds
to this '(Romanist attitude,
Now, that is not striotness
of discipline,
but
tyrannioal
and
barbarous
cruelty, that
is altogether
at
variance
with Paul's intention. For
he
means not
that he
should
be
oounted as an enen1Y, but as
a brother, (2 Thessalonians
3:15;) for in putting this
publio
luark
of disgraoe
upon
him,
the intention
is,
that
he
luay be filled with shame,
and
brought to
repentanoe.
Exoonlluunication does not
mean that
we would not
OO1ue
to
the
aid of
one
who is
in
need of the neoessities of life.
.
b.
Does exconlluunioatiol1
mean the exconlluunioated
lose
their
civil
authority
or
rights,
or
that
they
would
not
be
welc01ue and advised to
attend public worship? Not
at all. As Par. 6 of Chapter 14
of
The
Cambridge Platfof1u
states, Exoonlluunioation
being a spiritual
punishment,
it
doth
not prejudioe the
exoon1n1unioate in,
nor
deprive
hhu
of
his
civil rights,
and therefore
toucheth not
ahing the Nations OhTist s Diseiples
princes, or
other
luagistrates,
in point of their oivil dignity
or
authority. And, the
exconlluunicate being
but
as a publioan
and
a
heathen,
heathens being lawfully
penuitted to 00111e to hear
the
word
in
ohuroh assen1blies,
. we aoknowledge therefore
the like liberty of hearing the
\Vord, lUay
be
pen11itted
to
persons
exoonll11unioate
that
is permitted to
heathen
...
o.
\Vhat if we have a work
relationship or
happen
to be
eating
at the S3111e restaurant
or other public or professional
event? Calvin states, By
partaking of food here, is
lueant
either
living together,
or
familiar assooiation
in
n1eals. For
if, on
going
into an
inn, I see one who has been
exconlluunioated Sitting
at
table, there is
nothing to hinder
lue
fr0111
dining with
hh11;
for I
have
not
authority
to
exclude
hhu. What Paullueans
is
that,
in so far as it is in our power,
we
are
to shun the society of
those Wh01U the Church has
cut
off fr01u
her
oonll11union.
I would understand Calvin
to luean
that
i I should
happen into
a publio
eating
establislll11ent and there
be an
exconu11unicate dining there
I
an1 not
obligated to leave.
5.
How does exconll11unication
affect d01uestic, f31uily,
relations? This is
the
n10st
difficult oirotl1ustance.
First
of
all, I repeat, exoonlluunication
does not annul or abrogate
faluily, d0111estic, relations. As
the C31ubridge Platfonu stated,
Vvhile
the
offender rel11ains
exconll11unioate, the churoh
is to refrain
fr0111
allluen1ber
EXCOl1ununication in
the [ J01ne
like
conlluunion
with
hhn
in
spiritual
things,
and
also
f1'01u
all falniliar con1n1union
with hin1
in
civil
things,
further
than
the necessity
of natural
or
d01uestical
or
civil relations do require; and
are therefore to forbear to
eat and
drink with hhn, that
he l11ay be ash31ued. Also,
again, The Fonu of Process
of the
General
Asselubly of
the Church of Scotland, April
18, 1707, Chapter 3, Par.
17, said
that
they
shun
all
unnecessary converse
with
hhu or
her, nevertheless,
exoonll11unication dissolveth
not the bonds of civil or
natural relations,
nor exelupts
fr0111 the
duties of thelu.
How is this to
be
applied
in
the h0111e, however? Husbands
and wives l11ay
not
divorce
each other beoause
one
or
the other is exconlluunicated.
A wife oannot refuse
to
perfonu her
luarital
and
d0111estic duties if
her
husband
is exconlluunicated. She
oannot
refuse preparing
l11eals, conjugal relations,
etc. A husband
can not deny
his wife support
and
oare.
Parents
of a child still dwelling
in the h01ue who
had been
exoonll11unioated,
and indeed,
this should be a very rare case,
would still provide for their
child.
Children should
still
honor
and obey their
parents .
Exoonll11unioation, in other
words, would not annul
the
duties assooiated
with the
applioation of
the 5th,
6th,
and 7th c0111mandl11ents
in
the
h0111e. \Ve
have
parental
and
n1arital duties
and
obligations.
\Vhat
about partaking
of
17
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
9/10
Excomrnunication in the Home
meals
with a family
member
who has
been excommunicated
and
is still dwelling
in
the
home? Is this a "domestical"
relation or an "ecclesiastical"
relation?
One
position is
that
eating
with is a domestic
relation in
the
home. "Eating
with in this context
is
not
a
matter
of Christian fellowship
but of
domestic
relations.
The other position is that
excommunication is from the
fellowship of the people of God,
this is a covenant home,"
therefore,
the
excommunicated
person should take his meals
apart from the family. This
makes
me think
of
an
occasion
where
an
excommunicated
member of
the
church was
staying briefly in the basement
apartment of the
pastor
while
he secured another place to
live.
It
was over a Thanksgiving
holiday.
The
pastor's family and
friends were enjoying fellowship
and
preparing
for Thanksgiving
dinner
upstairs. The gentleman
wandered
up and mingled
a bit with
the
family.
When
time came
to
eat he perhaps
hoped
that
his
status
as
excommunicated
might
be
forgotten. However, the
pastor
"fixed" (Southern for
prepared)
him
a big plate of food, handed
it
to
him,
and
said, Now, you
may go back downstairs and
eat
your food." The man later
testified
that
the
Lord,
used that
exclusion from the warmth of
the
family to begin to break
his heart. In addition, he later
revealed that the Pastor
didn't
know
that
the light was
burned
out in his
room
downstairs
and he
also
had to
sit
in the
dark
to
eat
his meal. The
whole situation just amplified
his
being cut off, in the dark,
and the Lord broke his heart
unto
repentance.
Might
not
such a practice similarly be
blessed to
break
the heart
unto
true repentance of one
who is an
excommunicated
member of the family?
What
about
an excom
municated
child, son, or
daughter, who is
no
longer a
dependent, not living
at
home?
f they
are excommunicated
should
they
not be
treated
as
any other excommunicated
person
in the
church? They
ought
to be
disinherited as
well. They
should
not, it
seems
to me, be included
in
family.
reunions, celebrations such as
birthdays and anniversaries,
or other holidays. As we have
read earlier, should they not be
treated
as banished, dead? Of
course, this does not mean, as .
Calvin stated,
that
they would
be refused the necessities of
life. This does
hot
prohibit any
one
from helping anyone
that
has been
excommunicated
to food, fuel, or drink, orany
other of the essential
supports
of life. But the point is
that
if
we love them and
care
for
their
souls, should we
not
let them
experience what
it
means to
be cut
offfrom
the fellowship
of God and His people, as
it
will be in' eternity, i f they do .
not repent?
There
are, as we
have noted,
some
ciyil, social,
and
economic relations which
cannot
be severed, but we must
at all times give
no
relief to the
directive to have
no
fellowship
with
the
excommunicated
beyond
what
is necessary -
in
order
that
they may be saved
of an excommunicated parent.
What about
the
case of minor
children who are subject to
joint custody and visitation
with an excommunicated.
parent?
Minor children must
still obey and honor their
parents and
are dependent
upon
them.
If
they are
dependent
communing
members, they are still under
their parents' authOrity, the,
5th Commandment, and will
of necessity eat with them
as
part
of natural, necessary,
or
domestic relations.
Thus, we would not lay
upon them the burden and
responsibility, or authority,
to
have no "fellowship" with
an excommunicated parent,
ie, to
eat with them, for
example.
When they are no
longer a
dependant
child .
under
the
authority of their
parents, they
should
treat
an
excommunicated
parent as
an
excommunicated pers9n. They
should
not
have "fellowship"
with the excommunicated
parent or
parents
in order
that
they
may
be saved.
Some question, "How will
we be able to restore them or
bring them to repentance i f
we don't have fellowship with
them? Excommunication is
an action that speaks louder
than
words. Excommunication
means they
have refused
all
our
admonitions; warnings,
pleadings, will
not
listen to us,
and
thus
we
are
turning them
over to Satan, as Paul said in
I Cor. 5:5. Of course, if the
excommunicate
is willing
to
converse with us about their
spiritual condition and
listen
Another
real scenario is to
continued
entreaties, we
that
of minor
covenant children
should
communicate
with
The Oounsel
o
Ohalcedon
8/12/2019 2008 Issue 1 - Excommunication in the Home - Counsel of Chalcedon
10/10
them. But, as Daniel Wray
states, "To oontinue a prooess
of
talk
with a
person
who
has
nlade his
intention
to oontinue
in sin olear, is a failure to
aot biblioally,
t
betrays
the
extent to
whioh humanistio
psyohologioal theory has
beoome authoritative in
our
ohurohes. As G.
I.
Willianlson so aptly put it:
'Lack of ohuroh disoipline is
to be seen for what it really
is - not a loving ooncern as
is hypooritioally olait11ed,
but
an
indifferenoe to
the
honor
of Christ and the welfare of
the
flook'" (The 'Vestminster
Confession of Faith for
Study Classes, pg. 237)
14
By way of applioation,
there
oertainly needs to be
instruotion to the people of
God about exoonll11unioation.
Secondly, the ohuroh and
Session needs to be oareful
about exoonll11unioation.
Because of the seriousness of it,
t should never
be
done or
taken
lightly. It nlust be oarried out
oarefully and prayerfully, after
due
and
long efforts have been
nlade to restore one. However,
in the end, exoonll11unioation is
a fornl of disoipline to
restore
a sinning brother or sister in
order
that they
l11ay be saved
in
the day of judgnlent.
Brothers
and
Sisters, do you
love
the
Lord Jesus Christ?
Do
you love the ohuroh?
Do
you
truly
love and oare for the
exconll11unioated
aI110ng
us?
Then, we plead with you, follow
the instruotions of our Lord and
His Apostle. Wh0111 the Lord
loves, He disoiplines Heb. 12:6.
the Nations Ghrist's D1:sciples
ndnotes
,1
Richa1'd
Gan: