| |
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 judgment
based upon the compilation of circumstantial evidence, then
those members would have to come to a judgment 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.
|