Is the offending brother in Matthew 18 execommunited from the church?

Is the discipline exercised on a brother in Matthew 18:17" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17 equivalent to that exercised in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11-13?

Let us see what these passages say. In 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 the sinning one is to be “put away from among yourselves,” and the saints are not to have fellowship with him in any respect whatsoever. In Matthew 18:17," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17, when the offender has refused to “hear the church,” it is said, “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Our question therefore appears to mean, “Is this man also put away from the assembly as is the former?” and if so, the answer can only be that he is. For how could I be said to treat another “as an heathen man and a publican,” if he is still breaking bread with myself and others every Lord’s Day? And if the church has not put the man away at v. 17, why should it be said in the following verse, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”?

But it may be asked, why is the expression, “Let him be unto THEE,” and not rather “unto YOU” or “unto THE CHURCH”? I suggest that it is because the passage in Matt. i8 is not dealing directly with church procedure at all, but with the attitude of an individual towards one who has sinned against him. The assembly is only introduced incidentally as having to take action in certain circumstances which are mentioned. All the way through from v. an individual is being addressed, and it is not to be wondered at that the same should be the case in v. 17. Yet at the same time, since the matter has now reached a stage where the offender has refused to hear the church, each member of it by that refusal has been practically put into the same position with regard to him as the one first of all concerned, and must act toward him in the same manner.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does Jesus mean by saying we should "cut off our hand"?

In Matthew 18:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18 are these verses to be understood as a warning against our “offending” others, as in Matthew 18:6-7" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:6-7?

The R.V. makes the meaning clear by its rendering, “If thy hand or thy foot CAUSETH THEE TO STUMBLE”, etc.. Verse 7 connects with the stumbling of others in v. 6, and then in vv. 8, 9 we are warned against cherishing anything which may be a cause of stumbling to ourselves.

It is interesting that the three members named, are those on which in our physical life we would rely to prevent us from stumbling—our feet to hold us up, our eyes to see anything in the way which might stumble us, and our hands in the last resort to grasp something if the feet should fail us. Yet in the spiritual realm, it is the faculties on which we trust that may prove our undoing. Eve’s feet carried her to the tree, her eyes saw that it was good for food, her hands took of it that she might eat. The man who has the best hands and feet and eyes is a man of ability, and such a one was the most likely to have caused the dispute as to who is greatest, which occasioned the Lord’s words in this chapter.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How old was Abraham when his father died?

In Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 we read, “Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” and in V. 32, “and the days of Terab were two hundred and five years and Terah died in Haran.” Now, taking 70 from 205, would make Abram 135 years when Terah died, while we know from Gen. 12:4" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 12:4 that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and from Acts 7:4" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:4 that he did not leave Haran till Terah died.

It is not necessary to believe from Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were all born in the same year, but simply that Terah had no children till he was 70, and then had three sons born at intervals. In Genesis 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 5:32, we have an instance of the same thing, when we read that “Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” and yet Genesis 10:21" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10:21 tells us Japheth was older than Shem. It is equally clear that Abram was not the eldest of the three brothers. He and Shem are put first because of their importance as the progenitors of the chosen race and the Messiah. It is generally held that Haran was the eldest, born when Terah was 70, and that Abram came into the world 6o years later. This would account for the fact that he and his nephew Lot, son of Haran, seem to have been much of the same standing. Besides, we are distinctly told that Abraham was 75 when at the death of Terah, he departed out of Haran. He was born, therefore, when his father was 130 years of age.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does marriage involve mutual submission?

What is the significance of "Likewise" in 1 Peter 3:7" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:7?

Peter uses this word three times in his first epistle. The third use is "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder" (1 Peter 5:5)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:5). As the overseers submit to the Chief Shepherd in doing the work He entrusted to them, so the younger are to submit to older believers. This is the Lord’s arrangement; it is done because of submission to Him and for His approval.

The other two uses of "likewise" in the epistle are in chapter three. The chapter begins, "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands." This links this section of the chapter with the previous chapter. At its conclusion, chapter two highlights the suffering of the Lord Jesus which was inflicted unjustly, but which brought us such great blessing because the Sufferer trusted His God (vv 22-25). This is our pattern to follow (v 22). Earlier in the chapter believers are suffering wrongfully, but as they act in a godly way, blessing results. Now chapter three focuses specifically on a believing wife with an unbelieving husband. Through no fault of her own, she may suffer rejection, but she is to continue, as Sara did, to trust in the Lord and submit to her husband. She expects that her "well-doing" will be used by God for the blessing of her husband.

Most commentators take the "likewise" that begins the next paragraph addressed to husbands to merely balance the message to wives and continue the exhortation within the domestic sphere of marriage. Typically, they understand "as heirs together of the grace of life" to mean that the husband and wife share together in salvation, the grace of spiritual life. They may also understand "your prayers" to refer to the prayers of the husband and wife.

A difficulty with this view is that "likewise" in verse one and here in verse seven links this passage back to the truth in chapter two. The context is suffering wrongfully, which hopefully doesn’t apply to husbands in a Christian marriage. Giving honor to a believing wife "as unto the weaker vessel" hardly qualifies as suffering, or especially suffering wrongfully. The thought of submission which runs through chapter two hardly seems evident here either.

If we understand "the grace of life" to be a description of the exalted state of marriage, this may help. Christianity exalts marriage - whether involving believers or unbelievers - to a higher level. Marriage is a unique provision of God for the good (Genesis 2:18)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:18) of the human family. It has the possibility of involving the highest experience of love known in human relationships (Ephesians 5:25-32)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:25-32). Christianity teaches that marriage has the potential of being the "crowning grace" of life. In addition, since the teaching addresses husbands, is it not likely that "your prayers" are the prayers of the husband? Why should the failure of a husband to properly honor his believing wife hinder his wife’s prayers?

The full potential of marriage is within the reach of a believing couple. If the believing husbands in this verse are living with unbelieving wives, just as the believing wives, in the previous verses, are living with an unbelieving spouse, what an encouragement to them! God has handed these husbands the possibility that their marriages will rise to their full potential if they show Christian grace and consideration. Thus honoring a wife who rejects the gospel and perhaps appears to reject her own husband can only be the result of submission to the Lord. In so doing, he will cooperate with the Lord in seeing his prayers answered in His wife’s salvation.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Who decided the books that make up the Bible?

Who decided the books that make up the Bible?

Some "Church councils" have served some important and beneficial ends. Constantine convened the first official council at Nice in 325, but that council was to decide its issues by the Scriptures. The council did not decide the Canon (the books recognized as the authoritative rule for Christian living - the inspired books). It was to act on what was already recognized as the Christian Scriptures. Church councils did not decide the Canon. Long before 325, post-apostolic Christian writers referred to various writings as the Scriptures; in total, they referred to the 27 New Testament books we recognize today. Those men didn’t make them canonical, but recognized that they were part of the Canon.

In the New Testament itself are instances where writers recognize other current writings as Scriptures. Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:18 Paul treats Deuteronomy 25:4" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7" TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:7 equally as Scripture. Peter places all of Paul’s epistles on a par with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe. 3:16)." TARGET="_blank">2Pe. 3:16). The Spirit by inspiration is beginning to make the NT Canon clear. Those who were born of God recognized the authority and quality of the inspired writings.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why will animal sacrifices be required in the Millennium?

Why will these animal sacrifices be required?

The New Testament makes it clear that the offerings under the Old Covenant anticipated the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, but they did not satisfy God’s requirements (Heb 10: 1-12)" TARGET="_blank">Heb 10: 1-12) nor bring rest to the offerer. The sacrifice of Christ completely satisfied God’s requirements and ended the need of these typical sacrifices. Further, the New Testament shows that righteous living was not dependent on a legal system which included the offering of sacrifices (Galatians 3:2, 3, 5)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:2, 3, 5). Therefore the sacrifices in the Millennium will not anticipate the sacrifice, for it is completed. They will not be typical, for the types are fulfilled in "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:10). Neither will they contribute to righteous living.

Those offerings will be a visible reminder of the infinite sacrifice that has brought such blessing to believers of every age, to the nation of Israel and to the nations, to the Church, to the entire creation, and to the ages of the ages. "To Him be glory both now and forever. Amen" (2 Peter 3:18)" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 3:18)!

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

If a damaging rumor about a believer proves to be false, should the person be cleared publicly?

If a damaging rumor about a believer proves to be false, should the person be cleared publicly?

If the inaccurate rumors were dealt with publicly (for example, by a public rebuke, 1 Timothy 5:20)," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:20), they should be cleared publicly. Otherwise, as is more usually the case, those who become aware that what they have heard or repeated is false should be as diligent to correct and contain the damage as they were to further it. They would do the right thing if they apologized to the individual, too. As far as the wronged believer is concerned, he may kindly request the believers who have told others these inaccuracies to repair the damage to the assembly's testimony by correcting their mistakes. Beyond that, the wronged believer should leave it to the Lord to vindicate his name (Proverbs 20:22)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 20:22). It's a safe "rule of thumb," that when a believer can trust the Lord to clear his name he is in the right; when he insists that others clear his name, he casts suspicion on his cause.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is telling a half-truth a lie?

Does honesty require me to answer a question with all the information I have?

When the high priest charged the Lord to tell if He were the Christ, the Son of God, He responded with a complete answer. By His reference to Scripture (Daniel 7:13;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 7:13; Psalm 110:1,2; 2:2,7)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 110:1,2; 2:2,7), He provided sufficient information to fully answer the question, although He could have said more. Therefore, an answer need give only the information requested.

A response that hurts the hearer or injures his relationship with another will not edify or impart grace to the hearer (Ephesians 4:29)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:29). There must be a better answer.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Were the Old Testament saints born again?

I should think there could be no doubt that all the Old Testament saints were born of God, for how else could they have had communion with Him? The carnal mind (or the minding of the flesh) is enmity against God. How could David then have had the “desire to dwell in the house of the Lord,” or “thirst for the living God” unless he had received a new nature? The Old Testament saints were saved on the principle of faith, and no doubt God was revealed to their souls according to the measure of light bestowed. Our Lord speaks of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob sifting down in the Kingdom of Heaven with many from the east and the west (Matthew 8:11)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:11), and in John 3:3," TARGET="_blank">John 3:3, he lays down to Nicodemus the law of entrance into that Kingdom, namely, th reception of the new life: “Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

Surely this shews conclusively that Old Testament saints will only enter the Kingdom as born of the Spirit. 01 course, we make a difference between that—the bestowal of new life, and the indwelling of the Spirit or the baptism in the Spirit; these belong uniquely to New Testament saints. Nor do the Old Testament saints belong to the church, but they were undoubtedly individually regenerated. As for us, it seems safer and more practical to confine ourselves to what the Word reveals. No doubt the Spirit does work on men’s souls. It is just here that the mistake arises. It is to assume that the first work of the Spirit is to communicate life, whereas it is rather to create a sense of sin or at least of need. The natural man is dead in trespasses and sins, but this does not mean that he has no conscience or responsibility or capacity to listen.

I have heard it said that the 3000 at Pentecost in Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2: were “born of God” when they cried, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” and, if I mistake not, that Nicodemus to whom the Lord uttered the words “Ye must be born again,” was already born again, or he would not have come to the Lord. That a theory should entail such conclusions suffices, I think, for its refutation. The reception of the new life is connected with the reception of Christ, or the revelation of God proper to the dispensation. “As many as received Him, to them gave He the power (or right) to become children of God.” John 1:11-12" TARGET="_blank">John 1:11-12 There the order seems clearly_faith first, then life, because the new words are “even to as many as believed (not “had believed”) on His name”—"believing” is only another way of saying “receiving.” I think Hebrews 6" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6: , for instance, shews us how far men may go in the things of God, and yet never have been born again, and so with other passages. Alas, how many have evinced some interest in the things of God, and even like the stony ground hearers have received the Word with joy, but it has proved later to have been in appearance rather than in reality. How solemn the call to each is, to make our calling and election sure!

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why would an elder monopolize the assembly

Why would an elder monopolize the assembly’s ministry and prayer?

This is a two-sided issue. Almost any overseer would prefer a more healthy condition in which he shares the weight of responsibility with others. He is likely concerned about one of two problems: either no one is willing to help or others’ help lacks spiritual character or Biblical soundness.

Part of the solution lies with the believers in the assembly. All service, worship, and prayer is for the Lord and His glory. Therefore, whatever the difficulties or sense of personal inadequacy, all believers (male or female) should prepare spiritually for the gatherings. Each male should seek the Lord’s help to contribute in a way that will honor the Lord. Private prayer where the only ear that evaluates is the Lord’s will help a brother to pray and worship publicly where the most important listening ear is the Lord’s.

A common goal for all believers is to increasingly contribute to the assembly words and thoughts that have a Scriptural truth and weight. The Lord faulted His people for bringing offerings that were merely convenient and lacking in value (Malachi 1:8)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 1:8). God expected their best from His people (Numbers 18:12)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 18:12).

Another part of the solution depends on the overseer in question. Unconsciously, he may make it difficult for others to take part by being overly exacting in his expectations or critical in his manner. In some way, he may have the Elijah syndrome: "I only am left" (1 Kings 19:10, 14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 19:10, 14). It is most gratifying that the Lord reserves for Himself some who are not as outstanding as Elijah and He accepts His children’s faulty expressions and limited thoughts of Himself. Where would any of us be if He accepted only perfection in us? In virtue of the glories of the Priest Who represents us, our God accepts our feeble offerings (Heb 9:24; 13:15)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 9:24; 13:15). An overseer’s responsibility then is to work with the material God provides and to so nurture it that God receives increasing glory from it. Even if the increase seems very small, he continues to do what he can so the smoking flax is not quenched (Isaiah 42:3)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 42:3).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu