Feature One
Recovering The Third Mark
Of The Church
by Art Azurdia
(Continued from Page 1)
Step two: A confidential meeting with witnesses. When a brother continues in unrepentant sin the process of loving confrontation must continue as well. However, the number of the parties involved at this point is to expand to involve one or two additional people. For what reason are these additional people to be included? Not primarily to intensify the reproof or multiply the display of loving concern, though in fact these may be some of the additional benefits garnered. These additional people are to serve as witnesses, not of the sin itself,1 but of the confrontation process. “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be conferred” (Ma 18:15b). These witnesses are to observe the confrontation so that an accurate representation of it can be insured should the brother remain unrepentant and his sin be brought before the church.
It is for this reason that a guarantee of absolute confidentiality must never be given to a sinning brother in the first step of the confrontation process. To keep such a promise would force a believer to disregard the clear command of Jesus Christ. Such a promise could only be detrimental to the unrepentant believer.
Step three: A public explanation and exhortation to the church family. “And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church” (Ma 18:17a). While the work of confrontation is a ministry given to the entire congregation, it is obvious that at the point of public announcement the leadership of the church has become involved in this process. But what is the purpose of this public announcement? Why is it necessary to identify the name and sin of this unrepentant person? In order to exhort the entire assembly to pursue their brother and urge him to cease from his sin.
This is a step in the methodology of Jesus that is frequently overlooked by churches that seek to practice gospel discipline. When the confidential overtures to repentance continue to be spurned, it is often at this point that an unfortunately premature public announcement of disfellowship is made. This robs the erring brother of the most intensified form of loving confrontation. To be sure, the text does not explicitly say, “tell it to the church so that they all might pursue this brother.” Nevertheless, the next phrase makes this implication abundantly clear: “and if he refuses to listen even to the church” (Ma 18:17b). This presupposes the attempted reclamation of this brother on the part of the entire assembly. By means of personal visitation, telephone conversations, the writing of letters, or whatever means appropriate, the entire congregation is enlisted to lovingly seek out this brother and persuade him of the despicability of his sin to the Lord. As members of the body of Christ, they are to lovingly call him to repentance.
Step four: A severing of fellowship. In the event this brother continues in sin, a final and severe step is to be taken: disfellowship. “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer” (Ma 18:17b). A Gentile was recognized as one external to the covenant community, and a tax-gatherer was regarded as an agent of the pagan government. Both were excluded from the religious life of the Jewish community.
Now at this point some clarification must be supplied. Jesus is in no way indicating that the people of God must disassociate with unbelievers. He Himself was notorious for regarding Gentiles and tax-gatherers as people of dignity and worthy of His message. The context is speaking of one whom Jesus refers to as a “brother.” To be sure, his impenitence may eventually reveal the spurious nature of his faith, but at this juncture he is regarded as a member of the covenant community. And for such a person, when all previous steps of confrontation have been exhausted and subsequently disregarded, the final act of discipline is to remove the “brother” from the protective benefits and sanctifying influences of the Spirit-indwelt assembly. He is to be placed in the demonically controlled domain of Satan. It is here that God may providentially employ the Adversary and his wickedness as a means of bringing the brother to repentance. “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh” (1 Co 5:5). “Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Ti 1:20).
Since the sphere outside the church is the realm of Satan (1 Jn 5:9; cf. Co 1:13; Ep. 2:12), to deliver someone unto this realm is to put him out of the church, cutting him off from all Christian privileges. But this discipline is more than simple privation; it is “for the destruction of the flesh.” This term has had two interpretations. One which was current in the early centuries understood “flesh” as the lusts of the lower nature. But it is difficult to see how turning a person over to Satan would effect the destruction or the conquering of evil desires. It is better to take “the flesh” as a reference to the physical nature. Thus Satan is the instrument in God’s hand by which God inflicts some type of physical punishment. This corresponds with the physical effects of diving judgment upon those who profane the Lord’s Supper (1 Co 11:30). Here as in the case of the incestuous man and Hymenaeus and Alexander, the discipline was intended for spiritual gain so that the offenders would be ultimately found among God’s people (1 Co 11:32; 5:5; 1 Ti 1:20). No mention of physical infliction is made in the disciplinary instructions given by Christ (Ma 18:17). Therefore, it is not necessarily the inevitable concomitant of excommunication, but remains in the sovereign hand of God to use as He will. 2
An important question must be asked at this juncture: How much time is to transpire before moving ahead to each successive step? Admittedly, great reliance must be placed on the Spirit of God for subjective wisdom. However, two factors should influence the decision to move ahead expeditiously: (a) The extent to which the sin has become public; and (b) The degree to which willful rebellion progresses in its intensification. Of course, repentance and confession at any point along the process should prompt immediate forgiveness on the part of the church. Even disfellowship is not irreversible. Throughout the entirety of the process the people of God should be praying for repentance and longing for the opportunity to restore the offending brother.
The Supporting Assurances
When these steps of discipline are properly employed, is a church operating solely on the basis of its own inherent and collective wisdom? Or, is it possible for a church to be assured of an approval that comes from heaven itself? At the very least one can observe that many of the verbs used by Jesus are in the imperative mood (“go,” “reprove,” “take,” “let him be”). To be sure, the authority to exercise discipline is grounded in the commands of the Lord of the Church. Assurance and strength can be gleaned from recognizing that the church is operating in obedience to Jesus Christ when it carries out the ministry of discipline. But more particularly, in Matthew 18:18-20, Jesus provides the people of God with even greater assurances of support for this difficult work.
“Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). At first glance this may appear to be a promise of some significance; that as a consequence of the disciplinary process heaven will endorse the decisions of the church. But such is not the meaning of this text. God does not subject Himself to the authority of the church. He exercises sovereignty over it.
Rather, the phrases translated “shall be bound” and “shall be loosed” are perfect participles with action antecedent to that of the simple aorists “bind” and “loose.” Thus, this should be translated, “Whatever you bind on earth shall already have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose in heaven shall have already been bound in heaven.” Viewed in this way, it becomes apparent that this is not a carte blanche promise that heaven will ratify the decisions of the church, but more significantly, that when the church carries out this work on earth her decisions will reflect the will of God in heaven. This is an assurance of no small comfort for those who will take up this ministry. When discipline is carried out properly, the church has accomplished on earth what has already been accomplished in heaven.
Jesus then supplies a second assurance: “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be dome for them by My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 18:19). Extracted from its context, this verse is frequently quoted as an all-inclusive prayer promise for two people agreeing about anything before God. However, the context requires the Christian to see this promise in relationship to the process of church discipline.
Jesus is assuring gathered believers, even in the smallest of numbers,3 that God will provide wisdom and guidance for the church when she is united in her prayers regarding church discipline. Certainly this work of confrontation, and disfellowshipping when necessary, is an awesome task that demands the rare combination of delicacy and strength, patience and zeal. Yet the church need not fear attempting this work in her own resources. When discipline is carried out properly, the church has the direct support of God the Father.
1 Some have interpreted this to mean “witnesses of the sin in question.” To suggest this would imply two things: (a) That the church could never proceed on to the additional steps of confrontation unless at least two people had observed the sin; and (b) That somehow the witnesses would need to discover that they each possessed the same information. However, this would be an impossibility because the first step of confrontation demands confidentiality. It is better to view this as “witnesses to the confrontation itself” in light of the forthcoming justification: “so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact (more literally, “word”) may be confirmed.”
2 Robert L. Saucy, The Church In God’s Program (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 123.
3 “The assurance is given that even though at a certain place the fellowship of believers consists of only two persons, even these two, when in agreement with each other, can definitely figure on the guidance for which they have made request.” William Hendriksen, The Gospel Of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 702.
