Scriptural Explanation of Excommunication, Part 2

In the second place, it might be asked, why we should shun the apostates, since Christ said, “Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican,” and since it is manifest that Christ, himself, did eat with the publicans. To this I reply: What kind of sinners they were, with whom Christ ate, is well explained by the evangelists. For, when the Pharisees murmured, Christ said, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; but go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice; for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” What kind of sinners Matthew, the sinful woman, and Zaccheus were, after they had heard Christ is not a mystery, Matt. 9: 12, 13.

Again, Luke says, that all the publicans and sinners came to Christ to hear him, and with such did he eat, and therefore did he say to the murmuring Pharisees, “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine,” &c., Luke 15: 4.

Again, that he ate with the Samaritans, is no wonder at all, for they received his word and believed on him; but that he should have sought hospitality in a Samaritan city, is not rightly translated, according to the Latin text. Thus it reads in Latin: Misit nunciosante conspectum suum, and euntes intraverunt in ciritatum, Samaritanorum, ut pararent illi and non receperunt eum, quia facies ejus erat euntis Hierosolymam. Which being translated reads, He “sent messengers before his face, and they went and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him, and they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem,” Luke 9: 52.

What kind of preparation is hereby meant, may, in my opinion, be clearly learned from the case of the seventy, related in Luke 10: 1; whom he sent before his face by two and two, to make preparation for him in all the cities and countries whither he himself would come, not to prepare a place for sojourning, but for the teaching of the kingdom of God. But here they did not receive him. He says not that the master of the house did not receive him, but they, that is, the inhabitants of the city, to whom he had sent them to preach, did not receive him; because, as Luke says, he was going to Jerusalem; for the Samaritans and the Jews always have had a severe strife between them in regard to worship and religious matters. Yea, so much so, that the Samaritans were considered by the Jews as being deserving of the ban, John 4: 9; and if it were true, that he desired to find a lodging-place, yet it is apparent that the Samaritans were not Gentiles, but a remnant of the ten tribes of Shalmaneser; for the Samaritan woman said unto Christ, “Art thou greater than our father Jacob?” That Jacob was not the father of the Gentiles, is manifest. She also looked for the Messiah, whom the Gentiles did not know, she said, “I know that the Messiah cometh, which is called Christ,” John 4: 25. Again, after Stephen was stoned, Philip came into a Samaritan city and preached Christ unto them; and at that time they could not yet conscientiously preach the gospel unto the Gentiles and go amongst them. From this it may be safely educed that the Samaritans, who claimed the patriarch Jacob to be their father, who looked for the Messiah, and to whom they had already preached the gospel, before they were conscientiously at liberty to go among the Gentiles, were not heathen, but a remnant of the Israelites, as said before; therefore it is no wonder that he requested to sojourn with them. Neither did he say, Let him be unto thee as a Samaritan, but as a “heathen man and a publican.”

Behold, dearly beloved brethren, however we turn these words of Christ, they cannot be made to apply to any other time than that of Christ; namely, that, as the Jews at that time dealt with a heathen and publican—so we may also, now treat an apostate who, either through false doctrine, or through an unclean, shameful life, dishonors, rejects and disgraces Christ Jesus and his holy word. I wish, most beloved brethren, that every christian would diligently consider, since we have given our understanding of these words of Christ, whether not also Paul understood these words as meaning the same as we have explained. Yea, he who closely considers this matter, will find that Paul, in his doctrine of separation, has, in every way conformed to this rule of Christ.

Thus Paul says, “It is reported commonly, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you,” 1 Cor. 5: 1, 2.

In another place, Paul teaches how Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish, Eph. 5: 25. If we admit such open profaners as this fornicator, and, moreover, adulterers, drunkards, contentious, avaricious, upbraiders and idolaters, and do not shun them, then we must ever hear this reproof of Paul, that we are “puffed up” and do not rather mourn to separate such open transgressors from us. O, brethren, brethren! I fear that this admonition of Paul is not sufficiently weighed by some. Paul says further, “For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” 1 Cor. 5: 3, 4, 5.

These words of the apostle teach us three things: First, The great love of the faithful servant, Paul, toward his disciples and children; for although he was not present there, yet as present in spirit, he was paternally solicitous for them, and ever taught, admonished and advised them to their own good.

Secondly, In whose name, how, and by whom this separation, shall be practiced, namely, in the name, that is, by virtue of the command and ordinance of our Lord Jesus Christ. For Paul did not undertake to do any thing that he had not first received of Christ, as he says. Yea, if Christ had not first instructed Paul to do so, he would not have dared to command the Thessalonians, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they should separate themselves from every brother who walked disorderly, and not according to his ordinances. For this may well be called doing things in the name of Christ, when it is done in conformity to his holy word and will.

Again, It shall be practiced by the church; that is, every one shall not separate at his own pleasure; but it should be done by the congregation of God, after proper admonition in love, diligence and faithfulness, with the power of Christ, that is, with the binding or closing key of the Holy Spirit. For if it be practiced without the word and Spirit, without love and brotherly affability, whether it is through bitterness, anger, or a false report, not conformable to the word, for reasons not deserving of the ban,—then it is not a work of God, no medicine to the soul, nor fruit of pure love; but a contention of satan, a corruption and pestilence to the soul, and a manifest fruit of the flesh: In short, a curse, abomination and stench before God. Let every person well weigh these words of Paul, and he will, by the grace of God, find how rigidly this separation is commanded in the Scriptures, and how orderly it should be practiced in the church, with the power of the word and Spirit of Christ.

Thirdly, That we should deliver an unrepenting transgressor unto satan. Not, brethren, that he was not of satan before separation, for as soon as he turned his heart away from the Lord and became ungodly, he became the subject of satan, even as a penitent sinner is a subject of Christ. But now the voice of man, through the church, tells him that he is deprived of the communion of Christ and his church, and that he is now delivered unto satan until he again brings forth true fruits of repentance, before God and his church, that his adulterous, avaricious, refractory and idolatrous flesh may be brought to reflection and become ashamed and repentant by such judgment and shunning of the pious, that he may thus suppress and die unto his flesh, that is, the lusts of his flesh, and that he may by these means be brought to repentance and his soul be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Here the godfearing reader may observe in these words of Paul, the first reason why the Holy Spirit ordained this ban to be practiced in the house of God, namely, for repentance and not for corruption; that, if the transgressor rejects as null and void, all fraternal services and admonitions of faithful love that are shown to him, and remains unrepentant—that, then, according to the advice of the Holy Spirit, the judgment passed upon him, should, with sorrowfulness, be made known unto him in the church and that he is separated from the church that he may thus become ashamed unto repentance.

Again, about this shame, the apostle speaks in another place, “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed,” 2 Thess. 3: 14.

Take notice, brethren, that true, evangelical separation is an express fruit of unfeigned love, and not a law of hatred, as some, very wrongly, complain and pretend.

Ah, faithful brethren, if we rightly understood God, if we were enlightened with the Holy Spirit, and loved our neighbors with divine love, how diligently we would be engaged in this matter, to follow the faithful advice of the Holy Spirit, in all reasonableness and love, without respect of persons; no matter whether it concerns father, mother, sister, brother, husband, wife, child, or any relative or friend; for how can we show more spiritual love towards them? But as it is, a great many do not seek that which is of the Spirit, but that which is of the flesh; not their neighbors, but themselves. If they do so through ignorance, then may the merciful Father enlighten them with his Holy Spirit, and guide them into all truth; but if they do so through willful perverseness, then we know that it is written, “To be carnally minded is death,” Rom. 8: 6.

In the third place, Paul says, “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,” 1 Cor. 5: 6—7.

Again, with these words Paul reproves, first, the Corinthians, and, also, all other churches with them, who glory in being the church of Jesus Christ and the spiritual house of Israel, and yet tolerate such shameful, corrupting leaven, as the Corinthians and the like defilers, in their communion. For how can we glory in the piety of the church and reprove other churches on account of their ungodly doctrine and life, so long as we tolerate the like leaven of doctrine and life among us, without expelling it? If we are unleavened, Why are we not fearful of the leaven? since the apostle tells us that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”

Secondly, He here gives us the outward Israel as an example. For when they kept the passover, they did not keep leavened bread in their houses for seven days. Yea, if it was found in any house the souls thereof had to be rooted out from among Israel. Neither was an uncircumcised or unclean one to eat thereof. Oh, brethren, if the figure and shadow were to be so pure how much more should the reality be pure? For our passover is not a quadruped, but it is the spotless Lamb of God, Christ Jesus. Nor does our passover last seven days, as did the passover of Israel, but it lasts forever, namely, from the offering of Christ until the last day; neither is it kept by unleavened bread, baked of flour, but by the unleavened bread of righteousness and by the word of eternal truth.

Therefore, beloved brethren, let us keep this passover holy and unspotted, to the best of our ability, and let us, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, separate from us the corrupting leaven, that is, all those that walk in the foreskin of their hearts, and all impure in life (understand, open, known transgressors), that we may be the holy Israel of God, besprinkled with the blood of the lamb, free from the scourging angel of God, and that we may thus rejoice before the Lord, in sincerity and truth, and celebrate and serve it all the days of our lives.

Further, all the pious may learn from these words of Paul, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” the second reason, why this separation is so necessary and useful to the house of God, and that it can not stand without it. This has been shown in Israel. Moses, the faithful servant of God, strictly commanded the people of God, that they should, without mercy, destroy from among them the wilful transgressors, when proven by two or three witnesses; also, that if any prophets should arise among them, with signs and miracles to lead them to other gods, they should not hear them, but destroy them. Again, the father should not excuse his child, the husband his wife, &c., but their hand should be the first upon them. Also, they should level and destroy any city which went after other gods, that Israel might hear these things, fear God and no more practice such evil. I think this was a rigid separation which was commanded Israel. If they had stood firm and immutable in this, and had they followed the command, counsel, teachings and admonition of God, according to the Scriptures, and destroyed the false prophets and idolators, they would never have become so estranged from God, and come to such deadly whoring and degeneration (understand this as in the law). For the rejection of the counsel and will of God will never go unpunished, Deut. 13: 5, 7; 17: 11; 19: 15; Heb. 10: 18.

But at present, the Holy Spirit does not teach us to destroy the wicked, as did Israel, but that we should reluctantly separate them from the church, and that in the name of the Lord, by the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit; for a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. It is a common saying, One scabby sheep mars the whole flock. The lepers were not allowed among the healthy, in Israel; but had to be separated until cured. O, brethren in the Lord! the leprosy of the soul, is a leprosy above all diseases, whether it is in doctrine, or in life. It eats like a cancer, and, as Paul says, “leavens the whole lump.” Therefore the Holy Spirit has abundantly taught us to separate such from among us; not to hear the words of the false prophets, for they deceive us; to separate from such who, contrary to apostolic doctrine, cause offense and contention; to shun those who are not pleased with the salutary words and doctrine of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, but are contentious and desirous of quarreling, &c.; to guard against dogs and artful laborers and the selfish; to flee the voice of strangers; to shun an heretic or a master of sects, after having been once or twice admonished; not to greet nor receive in our houses him who does not teach the doctrine of Christ; and to withdraw from every brother who acts disorderly and walks not according to the apostolic doctrine. O, says Paul, that they be cut off who disturb you, Lev. 13: 2; Jer. 23: 16; Titus 3: 10; 2 John 10; 2 Thess. 3: 6.

I think, beloved brethren, the Holy Spirit of God has done well, and fully performed the duties of his office, and his faithful service of divine love toward his chosen people by admonishing, warning, teaching and commanding, in Moses and the prophets, in Christ and the apostles, in regard to the Shunning of heretics and apostates; but, if we through obstinacy or perverseness, still associate with the leprous, against the faithful counsel, teaching and admonition of God and intermingle with them, then we will also be infected with the same disease. It is the recompense of those who know the nature of the disease, and yet neither fear nor avoid it.

Say, most beloved, is it not the greatest foolishness and recklessness willfully and knowingly to run into the hands of the murderer, by opening unto him your house and office; for what else can you expect but stealing, robbing and murdering?

O, that the pious reader would receive the command, teaching, counsel, and admonition, so faithfully given by the Holy Spirit. Shun all heretics (I refer to those who have been of us), and apostates, according to the word of the Lord; whether it is father, mother, wife, child, relative or friend, or whoever will try to turn you from God and his word, and to corrupt you by doctrine or by life. Whosoever loves any thing more than his God, cannot be the disciple of the Lord, Matt. 10: 37; Luke 14: 26. Therefore, believe Christ Jesus, and sincerely fear him in his word, and you will follow his counsel and teaching; but if you be offended thereat, then await your punishment, for, by the grace of God, I know what it is to despise the word and will of God, and what I have felt and seen in this respect.

In the fourth place, Paul says, “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat,” 1 Cor. 5: 9—11.

From these words of the apostle we observe that he had on a former occasion, admonished the Corinthians, in an epistle, that they should shun the fornicators, covetous, &c., but they had also understood it as meaning the fornicators of this world. In this epistle, Paul admonishes them that this was not his meaning; for if they should shun such, and not have any dealings with them, they must needs go out of the world. But he meant those who are called brethren, as he shows in plain language, saying, “If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous,” &c., with such an one do not eat; just as the Jews did not eat with the Gentiles and publicans, at the time of Christ; neither did they keep their company; for Christ and Paul are one and not divided, John 4: 9.

I think, brethren, that this text is so plain and clear that it admits of no controversy; notwithstanding some violate and garble it.

First, they say, “Paul had no authority to burden us with any laws when it was not first taught and commanded him of Christ.” To this we answer: Let every one rightly reflect upon, divide and consider the words of Christ, “Let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican,” and he will find, by the grace of God, whether or not Paul first received this doctrine of Christ.

Secondly, they say, “Since Paul makes mention here of the Jewish passover, and adds that we should keep the passover, not in the old leaven,” &c., so this passage, and also his sayings, “With such do not company, with such do not eat,” must be understood as meaning a spiritual intermingling or communion. To such, we answer: Israel had a passover of seven days, but we have an eternal passover. And, as the Lamb of our passover is eternal, and his offering eternal, so we must now, perpetually sanctify and celebrate it, ever partake of its flesh; ever be sprinkled with its blood, and ever be diligently guarding against the ungodly, corrupting leaven of both doctrine and life. If our feast and passover then, is spiritual and not literal, eternal and not temporal, how can this then be applicable to the Lord’s Supper, which eating does not last but for an hour or so?

In the second place, we answer: If these words were spoken of a spiritual communion then it should read in the Greek text, choinonia, and in the Latin, communicatio, for that signifies a spiritual communion, as Christ communes with us, and the members of Christ commune with Christ; also, community of property. But in the Greek text is a different word, and in Latin it reads: commisceri siri commercium habere, which does not imply a spiritual communion at all, but an outward, temporal communion; and it appears the clearer from these words of Paul that he here speaks of the temporal communion and company, and not of spiritual. For he has prohibited this communion with the apostates and allows the communion with the world, which has no spiritual communion with us, nor can they have. This is incontrovertible. Yea, if the communion or intermingling with the world were prohibited, then we could not make use of the necessaries of life, but we would have to eke out our life in poverty, destitution, tribulation and misery, 1 Cor. 10: 3; Acts 2: 44; 1 Tim. 6: 18; Heb. 13: 16.

Thirdly, we reply: That Paul had reference to common eating, and not to the Lord’s Supper; for he calls it in Latin, cibum capere (to take food), and not, panum frangere (to break bread); and it is manifest that the Lord’s Supper is, nowhere in the Scriptures, called cibum capere. And if it were spoken in reference to the Supper, as some very mistakenly assert, then it would incontrovertibly follow that we are at liberty to invite the world to the Lord’s Supper, to greet them with the kiss of peace and to be one body with them; for this intercourse, unclean and prohibited with an apostate brother, is, according to Paul, clean and allowable with the world. O, no, but as the Jews at that time would not eat a common meal with the heathen and publicans, and Christ having pointed his followers to that usage, so Paul follows the doctrine and command of his Lord and master, Jesus; and says that we shall not eat with such.

I think that it has been sufficiently shown to the pious, that these words of Paul should not be understood as referring to spiritual communion, nor to the Lord’s Supper, but only to daily intercourse and common eating. If, now, it is not allowed in outward or carnal communion, it will be less so in inward or spiritual communion.

Dear brethren in the Lord, I would here pray and admonish you all, in humility, to consider well what the proper meaning is of this word commercium (intercourse), of which Paul speaks, and how we should understand it, that you may not give too much liberty to the reckless souls, to their own destruction, and that you do not too closely bind the narrow minded, since you have no binding word. For I hear and see, and have, alas, seen too much of it, these many years, that some, on every hand, use no weight nor measure in this matter; and the result is, that there is much dispute and trouble about this separation. May the Lord grant his divine grace to the peace, unity and edification of his holy church. Amen.

Inasmuch as I am an unworthy and humble servant, called into the house of God, and sincerely seek the good of my beloved brethren and co-workers; therefore I will briefly present my views concerning this communion or intermingling, according to my talent, with which I desire to appear before the throne of my Lord Jesus Christ, at the day of judgment, and will leave it to the criticism of God’s word, and all theologians. Therefore, my understanding of commisceri or commercium habere, (that is, to mix with or to commune), of which Paul here speaks, is, that it implies daily communion, company, walk, intercourse, presence, usage, conversation and dealing, and that it does not mean accidental conversation, or necessary dealings, such as dividing a legacy, liquidating debts, and such like incidental dealings, or to be serviceable in times of need; for the word commercium does not imply anything so strong. Therefore, in my opinion, some err not a little by attaching the same strength to the phrase “have no company with them,” that they attach to “thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not commit adultery,” of which Paul testifies that those who are guilty thereof, shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Their argument is, That nay is nay; yea, brethren, if this were the case, who could stand before his God?

Again, if the word commercium, which in our language, means an intermingling or communion, is to be explained, that we are not to speak a word with an apostate, not to have any necessary dealings with him; then the word commercium would be violated; many a pious child be retarded, many an unscriptural action done, and the faithful Paul would be rejected. For he says, “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” 2 Thess. 3: 15. Besides, it would make an evil report of the gospel of Christ.

It is also incontrovertible, that the publicans and some heathen lived in Judea, as, Herod, Pilate, Philip, Sisanius, Testus, &c., before whom they had to appear at times. Again, they also had to pay tribute to the Romans; and, therefore, were obliged sometimes, to speak to them, and had necessary dealings with them; although they diligently shunned their daily company, conversation, intermingling, eating, &c.

Dear brethren, take heed, and do not become masters and despisers of the Holy Spirit, that you do not, through the good opinions of men, make the way narrower nor broader, than the word, Spirit and example of the Lord makes and limits it.

In the fifth place, Paul says, “What have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” 1 Cor. 5: 12, 13. Here Paul explains his former words, that he did not apply them, in his first epistle, to those that are without; for God judges them, and not we. We ought to put away from among us the wicked persons, and commend the world to God.

Behold, faithful brethren, how unanimously Christ and Paul agree in the shunning of the apostates. And also, how earnestly Paul has taught and maintained this separation. Yea, that he has six times enjoined to practice this ban, in such a short chapter.

“Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.”

“To deliver such an one unto Satan.”

“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump.”

“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators.”

“With such an one, no not to eat.”

“Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” 1 Cor. 5: 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13.

All these are found in one short chapter; besides what he has taught, commanded and admonished in this respect to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus. John also has explained himself briefly. I do not see how a godfearing heart can have doubts in regard to this matter and how he can contradict it, since there are such good fruits and utility derived from this shunning. But it seems that this vine must have its worms.

Again, the refractory make another objection, and say, “When one is separated from the church it is not necessary any more to shun him, for he is no longer called a brother.” To such we reply: That they should, in the first place, consider that if such an one, who has acknowledged the Lord’s word and truth, and, for a time, led a pious, evangelical life, and has thus received baptism, becomes apostatized and afterwards sincerely repents, he is not rebaptized; for the Scriptures teach but one baptism. But if those who are of the world repent, they are baptized after repentance; for before, they neither confessed word, penitence, faith, righteousness nor baptism; and therefore it is a different matter. At the day of judgment, it will also be more strictly required of them than of the world, Luke 9: 5; 2 Pet. 2: 20; Matt. 24: 48.

In the second place we say that the world, notwithstanding, esteem them as brethren, and many of them would gladly be greeted as brethren; therefore it is very necessary to shun them, that both the world and they may know and understand that we can not accept such as brethren who are so unclean and blamable in doctrine or in life, lest the word of the Lord and his church be despised by the world, on their account.

In the third place we say, That Israel did not shun their open transgressors, nor the Corinthians their fornicators until they were separated from the church. It is neither a custom nor usage in the Scriptures, to shun anybody so long as he is suffered in the church; and therefore we should not shun any one, before separation; or else we practice a ban neither known nor mentioned in the Scriptures.

In the fourth place we say, That if we commune and associate with an apostate, after separation, then we show in fact that we despise the word, command, counsel, teaching and admonition of God; that we do not seek the reasonable shame of the apostate, which is to lead him to repent; and also, that we do not guard against the corruption of our own souls.

I trust that this is sufficient to appease every godfearing heart, in regard to the words of Christ, Matt. 18: 18, and in regard to the fifth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and that no more useless garbling, objections and artful excuses be made to turn it to the lusts of the flesh, for they can stand no better than stubble before the fire, and ice before heat. Yea, from these same words of Christ and of Paul it appears clearly how, when, where, with what spirit, of whom, on whom, and for what purpose this ban should be practiced. I think this foundation to be so powerful that it cannot be broken by christian reasonableness nor by divine truth. Let every one fear and love his God with all his heart, and he will, doubtlessly, receive the true knowledge of this matter, and will rightly follow the scriptural and God pleasing usage.