The apostle Paul demanded that the Corinthian Ecclesia disfellowship a man who was living with his father’s wife — therefore his mother or stepmother. It was a form of immorality not found even among the pagans.
Paul instructed them that he should be “taken away from among you…to drive out that wicked person from among you.” (I Cor. 5:2,13) Why? Why did Paul require them to withdraw fellowship from this man? Paul offers two reasons — both positive. Nowhere do we see that Paul wants the brothers and sisters to withdraw simply because this man has sinned.
The first reason for disfellowship
We see the first reason in verse 5: “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.” (I Cor. 5:5) One of the purposes of withdrawing fellowship, as Paul presents it, is a positive one: to save.
Consider how Paul refers to this problem in his next letter to the Corinthians: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.” (II Cor. 2:6-9) Paul’s comments here cement the understanding that withdrawing fellowship was a course of action to pursue in order to save, not to destroy. The erring brother did not see the incongruity between his lifestyle and his proclaimed faith in the gospel. Paul’s suggested course of action for the ecclesia was designed to embarrass this brother in order to create a self-examining frame of mind.
The second reason
The second reason Paul presents to support his call for disfellowship is to prevent this blatant disrespect to the gospel from spreading like venom throughout the body of believers. “Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.” (I Cor. 5:6-7) Paul wanted to prevent this flagrant disregard of our Lord’s commands from being practiced by an increasing number of brothers and sisters. The second reason for his call to disfellowship is also a positive one: to save — to save those within the ecclesia.
To save Hymenaeus, Alexander
Paul sought to help two other brothers, Hymenaeus and Alexander, in a similar manner. “Holding faith, and good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (I Tim. 1:19-20) We can easily see that Paul is referring to withdrawing fellowship because he uses the same terminology of “delivered unto Satan” as he did in I Corinthians.
The purpose for disfellowshipping these two brothers was not to seal their destruction for blaspheming — but that they might learn not to blaspheme. Withdrawing fellowship in the first century was never to destroy — only to save. There was always the thought of reclaiming a brother or sister from unrepentant sin.
Hymenaeus and Alexander’s sin(s) was probably a behavioral problem as well. Paul pointed out to the Romans that one blasphemes God by breaking the law. “Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.” (Romans 2:23-24) Paul quotes Nathan’s words to David here. Nathan told David that Bathsheba’s child would die because by David’s deed he had given great occasion to the enemies of Yahweh to blaspheme.
Our behavior reflects on God for honor or dishonor — even to the point of praise or blasphemy. The disfellowship of Hymenaeus and Alexander was to teach them not to blaspheme. There must be a transforming power to our faith– or there is no faith.
Disfellowship unpleasant
Now it is also clear that the act of disfellowship is unpleasant. Paul refers to it as a punishment. “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.” (II Cor. 2:6) The practice is presented by Paul as a necessary form of ecclesial discipline that is never pleasant to those with healthy minds. “Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” (Heb. 12:11)
And because it is so distasteful to administer, out of frustration, some will be driven to suggest that discipline is an unloving act.
The wisdom of the world says that the physical punishment of children is an act of abuse. Consider the arrest of a mother and father in New Hampshire recently for spanking their children. The wisdom of God says, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” (Prov. 13:24) The world tells us that we hate our children if we physically discipline them. God says we hate our children if we do not physically punish them. God defines discipline as an act of love -to save. The world defines strong discipline as barbaric hatred. The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God.
True love will discipline
According to scripture, discipline is practiced by those who love the subject of the disciplinary action. Disfellowship is an act of ecclesial discipline, albeit an unpleasant one. A refusal to administer discipline when necessary displays a lack of love for the person and a respect for the wisdom of the world.
The practice of withdrawing fellowship should never even be considered until all other attempts to reason and discipline have proven fruitless. However, the danger is seen in that there is a great deal of misunderstanding within the brotherhood concerning the purpose and application of withdrawing fellowship. Quite often those who suggest disfellowship as a course of action are labeled harsh fanatics, lacking in love and are even accused of thinking of themselves as sinless. These thoughts betray a poor understanding of scripture. Withdrawing fellowship is never to purge; it is to save. It is to reclaim someone who has been lost. It is not to eradicate; it is to educate. When all reasoning has failed, when all other forms of ecclesial discipline have been exhausted, the unrepentant brother or sister will be lost if the ecclesia does not love enough to suffer the unpleasantness of withdrawing fellowship.
Disfellowship is not stoning
Often those who suggest disfellowship as a course of action are warned that they should learn a lesson from Jesus in how he dealt with the woman taken in adultery. This parallel displays an improper understanding of the purpose of withdrawing fellowship. It is an act of discipline, not execution. There can be no parallel between disfellowshipping and stoning. How does one reclaim someone who has been stoned? How could the Corinthians “confirm their love” to a brother who had been technically stoned? How can anyone learn not to blaspheme after they have been stoned? Disfellowship is a practice undertaken to save the erring brother or sister, not to destroy them!
The suggestion is made that Christ did not condemn the woman taken in adultery to the act of stoning; therefore there must be a parallel between the Pharisees and Scribes who wanted to condemn the woman and the Christadelphians who recommend disfellowship as a course of action. Since there can be no parallel between disfellowship and stoning, this is an impossible application. Disfellowship is intended to induce a reflective, self-examining state of mind; a state of mind where humble repentance is possible. It is hoped that indignant, self-justification will surrender to prayers for forgiveness and an anxiously awaited request for reinstatement.
It is very disappointing when even the embarrassment of ecclesial disfellowship does not induce self-examination and repentance. We can feel that we are the ones who failed -failing the erring brother or sister.
Today’s morals affect the ecclesia
Ecclesias are often confronted by indignant self-justification today. It is easier to call evil righteousness than it is to repent. We live in a world that thrives on a constantly degenerating concept of right and wrong. Actions that would have been a source of shame 25 years ago now constitute a boast. Behavior that would have doomed political careers then, has no negative effect today. The Christadelphians can maintain a comfort cushion of religious respectability while still accompanying society in its moral plunge. Our standard is Jesus Christ. What matters is how he sees us, not how more spiritually acceptable we appear when compared to the world.
Practice true love
It is certainly easier to avoid the unpleasantness of ecclesial discipline when it proves necessary. We have two paths to take after we have exhausted our attempts at reasoning. We can redefine good and evil, calling light darkness and darkness light, or we can love our brother or sister enough to attempt to reclaim them from an unrepentant attitude through ecclesial discipline.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One