A Scriptural Study of "Excommunication"

   I) Conclusive evidence is required for the conviction of a man under
God's law. This has nothing to do with American law, which states that
a man must be convicted beyond the "reasonable" shadow of a doubt. God
requires absolute proof.

   1) Exodus 22:2-4

   The thief was convicted on the basis that he was caught in the
actual performance of thievery (vs 2,4)

   2) Exodus 22:7-13

   This is a perfect example. In verse 9, they are brought before
judges. Verse 10 begins instruction for the resolving of the matter if
conclusive proof is not available for the judges: "...no man seeing
it." (vs 10b) Verse 11 gives the exact instruction: the defendant's
word was to be taken if the evidence was not conclusive. (Hebrews
6:16). The oath was to be accepted at face value. Verse 13 shows the
producing of concrete, conclusive evidence.

   3) Leviticus 4:13,22,27; 6:4; Numbers 5:6

   Notice the addition of the words "and is guilty" in all of these
verses. The definite implication is that the proof is irrefutable.

   4) Leviticus ch 13,14

   Another good example. It was never taken for granted that a certain
kind of sore was leprosy. There are specific steps laid out in detail
for determining BEYOND the shadow of a doubt that the thing was
leprosy. Notice that the man was not pronounced unclean UNTIL it was
ascertained CONCLUSIVELY that it was actually a leprous sore.

   5) Numbers 5:11-31

   Here again are exact, detailed, step-by-step instructions for
dealing with a matter that is unclear. Verse 13 states that in order
for a case in point to treated in this manner there were two
qualifications:

   A) There had to be no witnesses. This implies that in order for her
to be convicted under the normal laws found in Leviticus 20 there had
to be EYEWITNESSES, not a conglomeration of evidence. (Granted, this is
dealing with a specifically named sin, but the application of the
principle is nevertheless valid in other circumstances as well.)

   B) She had to not be "taken with the manner" (Leviticus 15:19-33).

   The ensuing method of determining the woman's guilt or innocence was
for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter beyond ALL shadow of
a doubt (verse 27,28).

   6) Numbers 35:30

   Again, ABSOLUTE proof was required, and according to this verse, the
only proof acceptable was the EYEWITNESS accounts of more than one
person. (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Hebrews 10:28; 1 Timothy 5:19)

   7) Deuteronomy 19:15-20; 17:4

   These verses are self-explanatory. 17:4 interprets 19:18. In order
for the man to be proven guilty, the thing must be CERTAIN.

   8) Deuteronomy 22:13-21

   The CONCRETE evidence of her virginity had to be produced (verse
15,17,20).

   Of course I realize that we are not under the law, but the practical
principles found in the law are good for application in the current
dispensation (Romans 15:4; 4:23,24; 1 Corinthians 9:9,10; 10:6,11; 2
Timothy 3:16,17). The principle I am therefore drawing from the
scriptures listed above is that God requires ABSOLUTE proof in the
matter of determining a man's guilt or innocence. In every recorded
case in which there was room for ANY doubt, God gives explicit
instructions on how to deal with it. There is not one single case in
scripture where any man was judged guilty without CONCLUSIVE proof. For
example:

   1) Genesis 4:9,10

   When Cain denied his crime, God produced in verse 10 the conclusive
proof. Obviously, God is not by any means obligated to do this, since
He is God. Yet, He has always practiced what He preaches.

   2) Leviticus 24:10-17

   In this example, the question of the woman's guilt is not an issue.
I offer it for the illustration that verse 11 gives of my point: Her
sin was irrefutable.

   3) Numbers 25:6-8

   In verse 6, the Holy Spirit is careful to plainly state that this
sin was committed in the view of all the congregation. Though there is
more than one reason for this, it shows again that even God Himself
does not act against this principle.

   4) Joshua 7

   The account of Achan stealing from God's tithe is a perfect example.
No one knew who did the sin. God told Joshua EXACTLY what to do. The
ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE evidence was produced (verses 22,23) BEFORE the
man was punished.

   There is enough in those four examples to show what I am saying.
Therefore, in order to properly apply 1 Corinthians 5, and especially
verse 12, you must apply the principle found in the word of God for
determining the guilt or innocence of a man. The application for the
principle would seem to be this: If a man is conclusively guilty and
will not repent, put him out. If he is not CONCLUSIVELY guilty, then
you are obliged to take his word at face value (Exodus 22:11; Hebrews
6:16) and let God deal with the man if he is guilty and lying
(Deuteronomy 1:17; Colossians 3:25; Romans 14:4,8; 12:19; 8:33; James
4:12; John 8:50; Psalm 7:11, etc). After all, if the man is one of
God's children, the Lord is more than able to deal with the problem
without interference from another man. In addition, if the principle is
to be applied, it must be applied consistently. For example, if a
person in the church is a drunkard (verse 11), he also should be put
out, along with the others. And, as one last note on this subject, it
seems that the specific sins for which a man might be put out of the
church are listed in verses 9-11. I wonder how many would have to be
churched for being covetous?

   II) It is unscriptural to put a man out of the church for the intent
to get him to confess, or with the condition that if he confesses, he
will be let back in.

   There must be a distinction made between church "discipline" and
church "excommunication". There is a very great deal of difference
between rebuking (1 Timothy 5:20), avoiding someone (Romans 16:17; 2
Thessalonians 3:14)), or admonishing (Romans 15:14; 1 Thessalonians
5:12; 2 Thessalonians 3:15), and expelling someone from the
congregation. There is not a single verse of scripture in support of
the notion of expelling someone in order to make him confess his sin,
and there is no scripture showing confession as a condition for
re-entrance. The reason for this relates back to my first point - you
don't put someone out in the first place unless his guilt is CERTAIN,
and CONCLUSIVELY provable. Thus, there is no need for confession in the
sense of admission of guilt, because there would be no room for denial
anyway. I definitely agree that the sin must be purged in order to
clear the way for the Holy Spirit. The case of Achan and the battle of
Ai illustrates that very plainly. However, great care must be taken
when dealing with a man's life. The sin may be suspected; there may
even be a strong case for the man's guilt, but unless you can prove
beyond ALL doubt that he is guilty, you had best leave it to God to
take care of His own.

   III) It is unscriptural for the Pastor of a church to have the sole
authority in the expelling of a member. In saying this, I am by no
means going against Pastoral authority. In fact, I am very strong FOR
it. Yet, there are limits to this authority. God is explicit that His
shepherds are not to be dictators (1 Peter 5:3). There is a very fine
line between leading the sheep and driving them. I ask you, what is the
purpose of voting on the acceptance of a person who wants to join the
church? If you're going to vote them in, why don't you vote them out?
If man wants to leave of his own volition, that's one thing, but if he
is being put out against his will, there should be a vote, at least of
the elders in the church. The scripture seems plain that the
responsibility of this extreme measure of church discipline is not to
be taken by one man. In the cases of the imposition of the most extreme
punishment available under Old Testament law (death), the congregation
was to be involved in the judging, AND the justice. (Numbers
35:12,24,25; Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:7; Joshua 20:6) Also, notice the use
of the plural "judges" (Deuteronomy 19:17; 25:1; Exodus 21:22; 22:9; 2
Chronicles 19:5,6). Again, in order to avoid strife and division in the
church, the case must be absolutely concrete. If a Pastor was to go to
his members with a situation in which he was making a judgement based
upon the compilation of circumstantial evidence, then those members
would have to come to a judgement of their own, and thus would have to
choose sides. Obviously, this would not be beneficial to the health of
the church. It is for precisely this reason that the evidence has to
CONCLUSIVE. The proof has to be so conclusive that there is no room for
denial on the part of the accused.

   If the above principles are adhered to when considering the
excommunication of a member of a church, then it will be conducted in a
godly manner which will give no room to the devil for reproach.

../