Can social discipline be lifted for a person who has been put away from the assembly?

Can social discipline be lifted for a person who has been put away from the assembly?

Social discipline is intended to preserve other believers from doing what the offender has done. When the excommunicated person changes his behavior., social contact with the other assembly believers no longer poses any threat to their behavior. For example, when a couple put away for fornication marries, they no longer endanger the behavior of others. On occasion the excommunicated individual chooses to remove himself from contact with believers, perhaps going back into the world. In that case, 1 Corinthians 5:9," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:9, 10 applies. He is no longer in the class of those from whom believers must withdraw.

In Matthew 18:18," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18, the Lord teaches that, because the Lord is in the midst (verse 20), the assembly must carry out Gods mind on earth. Through Gods Word, the decision of God in heaven and the assembly on earth are the to the same. The assembly imposes discipline ("whatsoever ye shall bind") and exempts from or lift discipline ("/whatsoever ye shall loose") in concert with heaven. The social discipline in 2 Thessalonians 3" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3 was temporary until the behavior changed. Therefore, the Lord intends the social discipline in both 2 Thessalonians 3" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3 and 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5 to be lifted at the appropriate time.

The assembly applied the Word of God, binding the discipline. The assembly is now to apply the Word of God in lifting or loosing the discipline, thus carrying out the Lords mind on earth. Just as the discipline is not an act of the overseers, but of the assembly, and has been handled in the presence of all the assembly, so lifting the discipline should be handled in the same way.

How will the assembly know when social discipline should be lifted?

This involves a subjective judgment by the overseers in guiding the assembly. As shepherds they know the spiritual state of the disciplined person and have an ongoing interest in bringing that individual back to the Lord and eventually to the assembly. Even if there is no spiritual recovery, shepherds, who see the wanderers, will know that the time comes that he wondering offender no longer endangers other believers with this behavior.

Social discipline is not intended to heap shame on a person for all the years of his life, but to cause him to be ashamed that his sin has had such serious results and has endangered others. When his behavior no longer endangers others, it is time to end the shame and lift the social discipline.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What drives the present marriage of evangelicals and politics?

At least four misunderstandings contribute to this.

1. A wrong prophetic view. Reform theologians, not expecting a Millennium, thought society could be "saved" without Christ’s coming. Some millennialists forget these roots of their crusade.

2. A wrong ecclesiastical view. Responsibility for "church action" belongs to a local church. "The Church" never refers to all believers on earth. Tragic events, like Hitler’s madness, moved some to think the church has a responsibility to withstand immoral governmental policy We are to "do good unto all men," but assemblies uphold truth (1 Timothy 3:15)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:15) by proclaiming it, not by confronting governments.

3. A wrong world view. This is not a Christian world. Christian principles are diametrically opposed to society’s standards. Imposing them is not possible and not workable, apart from Christ’s coming reign.

4. A wrong dispensational view. God’s Old Testament focus was the nation of Israel. Now, His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36);" TARGET="_blank">John 18:36); He is saving individuals "out of the world" (John 17:14, 16;" TARGET="_blank">John 17:14, 16; Acts 15:14)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:14). If we understand this distinction, we won’t make Old Testament kings (and other worthies) our models for political action. Despite our nationalism, the only government that will bring God’s will to earth is future. Until then, our responsibility is to rescue men from the "kingdoms of this world."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Judas Iscariot participate in the Lord's supper?

Does the institution of the Lord's Supper follow Judas' departure?

The historical records of Matthew and Mark place the institution of the Lord's Supper after the Lord spoke of giving the sop to Judas (Matthew 26:20-29;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:20-29; Mark 14:17-26)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:17-26). John gives the conversation in fuller detail and adds that Judas, "having received the sop went immediately out" (John 13:30)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:30). Luke 22:14-38" TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:14-38 does not contradict this. Typically, Luke develops a moral structure befitting the events he selects. John 13:32," TARGET="_blank">John 13:32,33 contains the Lord's wondrous statement regarding His cross, death, resurrection, and ascension into glory. He refers to the unending revelations of God glorified in Him in eternal oneness. This seems to be linked with Luke 22:22" TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:22 ("Truly the Son of Man goeth") and therefore to precede the institution of the Supper. Since He then addresses the disciples as little children (John 13:33)," TARGET="_blank">John 13:33), commencing the Upper Room ministry, it seems very reasonable to conclude that the Lord instituted the Supper between verses 32 and 33.

J. N. Smith

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I confront a person who is lying to me?

How do I deal with a Christian when I believe he has been untruthful with me?

The New Testament statement, "lie not one to another" Ephesians 4:25)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:25), clearly indicates believers could be untruthful with one another. Examples from Scripture underline God's displeasure with untruthfulness: Cain lied about his brother (Genesis 4:9);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4:9); Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:4)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:4). To be helpful, it would be prudent, after much prayer, to show the apparently untruthful believer the serious view that Divine Persons have of their action. The suspecting believer is thus attempting to convince him to be transparent and honest. Remember, there is more convincing power in the Word of God than in our own attempts to correct our brother.

H. S. Wells

Other pages in this section

About this site

What happened to the people who rose from the dead when Jesus was crucified?

Matthew 27:52," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:52,53 states that “many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Is it known what happened to these saints? Did they go to heaven with Christ or did they return to their graves?

We are not told in the Scriptures, but the resurrection of these saints in connection with that of our Lord leaves little doubt, I think, on the matter. Our Lord Himself was shewn after His resurrection “not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God” (Acts 10:41)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:41), to make it easier for the people at large to believe in the resurrection. He was the first-fruits. “Many bodies of the saints arose and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” They could not deny their own senses that they had seen their dead friends alive, and if so, why should not the testimony of the disciples be that Christ had risen? Under such circumstances, it seems very difficult to believe that the resurrection of these saints was anything but a true and lasting resurrection. I believe this was the first stage in the First Resurrection, of which the resurrection of the sleeping saints, when the Lord comes, will be the second stage, and the remaining saints who have died when He returns in glory the final stage. “This is the first resurrection.” Had they returned to their graves, it might be said that He did, too. Surely they were part of that captivity which He led captive when he ascended on high.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How much alcohol should a Christian drink before feeling that he has gone too far?

How much alcohol should a Christian drink before feeling that he has gone too far?

A simple answer is that a believer should avoid alcoholic drinking in a social setting. Drinking alcoholic beverages can become a habit and lead to drunkenness. The first time wine is mentioned in the scriptures is in connection with Noah, "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent" (Genesis 9:21)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:21).

Drunkenness and impurity are associated, as wise King Solomon points out in Proverbs 23:29-35." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 23:29-35. Genesis 19:32" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 19:32 gives further evidence of this. Wine in itself is not condemned in scripture; however, it is clear that drunkenness is a very serious sin (1 Corinthians 5:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:9).

Paul exhorts Timothy to "use a little wine" as a medicine, not a beverage. He limits the amount to "a little" (1 Timothy 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:23). "Be not drunk with wine, ...but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:18).

What about a Christian's testimony before unbelievers to whom he has spoken about Christ when they see that believer drinking?

J. Abernathy

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Joseph practice fortune telling or divination?

Are we to understand from Genesis 45:5," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 45:5,18 that Joseph actually used divination?

Though divination was common in Egypt, it is hard to suppose that a pious believer in the true God like Joseph should use such practices. Moreover, as one in close touch with God and an interpreter of dreams, etc., what drawing could he have to descend to such heathenish customs?

The cup may very well have been similar to those used for this purpose, but it is noticeable that Joseph only says to his brethren, “wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?” (v. 15), without affirming that he did. It must be admitted that his word through his steward does seem to go further. The true explanation may be that in order to keep up his character before his brethren, as an orthodox Egyptian, so as the more effectually to carry out his deliberate plan for their conviction and restoration, he might feel justified in conveying this momentary impression that he divined. If he did so, it is not commended nor is it specifically blamed. We are aware in reading the Old Testament that even men of God had not the same standards of truthfulness, that are binding on us to-day. The word here for “divine” (nihesh) is translated, “I have learned by experience” (Genesis 30:27)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 30:27), and “did diligently observe” (1 Kings 20:33)," TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 20:33), but generally, “to use enchantments” (2 Kings 17" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 17: I7 2 Kings 21:6)." TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 21:6). Such divination is strictly forbidden later in the Word of God (see Levticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 19:10)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 19:10).
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Must sisters cover their heads at weddings and funerals?

Must sisters cover their heads at weddings and funerals?

No. The Scriptures teach that "cultural head coverings" are part of the testimony when the assembly comes together. Weddings and funerals are not assembly meetings. If a sister chooses to wear a hat, it is unbecoming for any believers to belittle her for her ostensible failure to grasp that this occasion is not an assembly gathering. Nor is the sister who wears this covering indicating that, because of this, she is more spiritual than those who choose not to wear a head covering.

A case can be made that it is advisable for sisters to wear head coverings because the reading of and speaking from the Word of God at these social occasions is related to the assembly’s testimony. Also, a sister may see the value of letting others who do not attend the assembly gatherings know that the assembly still carries out the Bible’s teaching about head coverings, although many other congregations have discontinued that practice. On the other hand, some make the case that sisters with their head coverings unnecessarily alienate unbelievers by making them feel uncomfortable. In either case, the choice is personal. A sister may make either choice with the purpose of honoring the Lord. Romans 14:6" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:6 is relevant to this issue.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Melchizedek an appearance of Christ in the flesh?

What are we to gather from the scriptural reference to Melchizedek?

Was he a man of God of his time—a priest of the Most High, indeed, or was he actually the Son of God?

In dealing with this perennial question one wishes to recognize the views of some esteemed brethren who take a contrary view to that expressed here. They believe that this was a Theophany or appearance of the Second Person of the Godhead in a temporary human form (all such theophanies being necessarily Christophanies), and that Melchizedek was actually the Son of God. But is there nothing in the fact that he is said to have been made “like unto the Son of God”? You don’t say a man is like himself; he is himself, but he may closely resemble someone else. However, many such theophanies occur to us—the man who wrestled with Jacob at Jabbok, the man with sword in hand who appeared to Joshua, the angels who appeared to Gideon and Manoah, etc.

One thing characterises them all. At first the appearance seems only human—an ordinary man, but at the end the superhuman, nay the Divine, character of the appearance is manifested. Note this in each of the cases referred to above. This is entirely absent in the case before us. In no sense are we informed that Abraham recognised Melchizedekas Divine, but he did recognise him as a king and as a priest of the Most High God, who ministered to his bodily needs and was greater than himself, therefore able to bless him and worthy to receive tithes from him. Again, Christ might have appeared as a King, but surely not as King of a well-known place as Salem or Jerusalem. Whoever Melchizedek was, his office as priest only shews that God in calling Abraham for a certain object, had not for that left all the world in darkness, but still had notable witnesses, outside His purpose concerning His chosen people to be. Those who stand for the deity of Melchizedek rely much on the expressions used by the Spirit of him in Hebrews 7" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7: , and make rather “in and out” efforts to shew how each expression applies to Christ. I believe the whole effort is in vain, for these expressions if forced to apply to Christ must be interpreted either of Him in incarnation or of Him before incarnation, and this cannot be done.

As a matter of fact, I believe there is one point and only one which the Holy Ghost would emphasise by His silence in Genesis 14" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 14: concerning the parentage, genealogy, birth and death of Melchizedek, and that is the conventIonal continuity and endless character of His priesthood. The meaning is not that this man was actually without parents nor that he is alive somewhere to-day, but that by the fact that he appears suddenly on the page of Scripture and that no mention is made of his decease, he is thus qualified to be an apt figure of Him Who is Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek and Whose Priesthood can never pass to another.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Aaron's miter like the woman's head covering in the church?

What is the relationship of Aarons mitre with the coverings of 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11?

The teaching of I Corinthians 11:2-16" TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 11:2-16 seems to be more a contrast than a comparison. Headship is the core truth of the passage and is distinguished from lordship. Picturing a body, headship points downward from the head and involves the responsibility of the head for the body. God has established an order in which the head takes care of the body. Lordship is complementary to this and points upward to the head. Lordship indicates the responsibility of the body to the head. The body acknowledges this order by subjection. Authority is linked with lordship, administration with headship. Colossian truth is that He is the head of the Body ("looking from the head down") and is therefore the source of our completeness (Colossian 1:18; 2:10, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Colossian 1:18; 2:10, 19). Ephesian truth is that we are in the Body ("looking from the body up") and are responsible to one another and to the Lord (Ephesians 5:21, 22)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:21, 22).

Second, two spheres of headship are on display in the head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11: Christ is head of the man; man is head of the woman (verse 3). The temporary covering on the head of the woman and the lack of a covering on the head of the man expresses Christs headship of the man. The short hair of the man and the long hair of the woman express mans headship of the woman. The first sphere of headship requires incarnation and redemption. The second dates from creation (not the Fall).

Interpreting Aarons head covering in light of 1 Corinthians 1" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1 seems to confuse the issue therefore, since headship is not related to subjection to authority and the covered head displays a New Testament headship.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu