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 to you as a heathen man and a publican,” and since it is plain that Christ himself ate 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, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice; for I have 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 no mystery, Matthew 9, verses 12 and 13.

Again, Luke says that all the publicans and sinners came to Christ to hear him, and it was with such that he ate; and therefore he said to the murmuring Pharisees, “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine,” and so on, Luke 15, verse 4.

Again, that he ate with the Samaritans is no wonder at all, for they received his word and believed in him. But the saying that he sought hospitality in a Samaritan city is not rightly translated, according to the Latin text. In Latin it reads: Misit nuncios ante conspectum suum, and euntes intraverunt in civitatem, Samaritanorum, ut pararent illi and non receperunt eum, quia facies ejus erat euntis Hierosolymam. Translated, this 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, verse 52. [Note 1]

What kind of preparation is meant here may, in my opinion, be clearly learned from the case of the seventy, related in Luke 10, verse 1, whom he sent before his face two by two to make preparation for him in all the cities and places where he himself would come—not to prepare a place to stay, but for the teaching of the kingdom of God. But here they did not receive him. He does not say that the master of the house did not receive him, but that 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 have always had a bitter strife between them over worship and religious matters—indeed, so much so that the Samaritans were considered by the Jews to deserve the ban, John 4, verse 9. And even if it were true that he wanted to find a lodging place, it is still apparent that the Samaritans were not Gentiles but a remnant of the ten tribes of Shalmaneser; for the Samaritan woman said to Christ, “Are you greater than our father Jacob?” That Jacob was not the father of the Gentiles is plain. She also looked for the Messiah, whom the Gentiles did not know; she said, “I know that the Messiah is coming, who is called Christ,” John 4, verse 25. Again, after Stephen was stoned, Philip came into a Samaritan city and preached Christ to them; and at that time they could not yet in good conscience preach the gospel to the Gentiles and go among them. From this it may safely be concluded that the Samaritans, who claimed the patriarch Jacob as their father, who looked for the Messiah, and to whom the gospel had already been preached before the apostles were free in conscience to go among the Gentiles, were not heathen but a remnant of the Israelites, as was said before. Therefore it is no wonder that he asked to stay with them. Nor did he say, Let him be to you as a Samaritan, but as “a heathen man and a publican.”

See, dearly beloved brothers: 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 a publican, so we may now also treat an apostate who, either through false doctrine or through an unclean, shameful life, dishonors, rejects and disgraces Christ Jesus and his holy word. Now that we have given our understanding of these words of Christ, most beloved brothers, I wish every Christian would diligently consider whether Paul did not also understand these words to mean the same as we have explained. Indeed, whoever considers this matter closely will find that Paul in his doctrine of separation conformed in every way to this rule of Christ.

So Paul says, “It is commonly reported 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 you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you,” First Corinthians 5, verses 1 and 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, Ephesians 5, verse 25. If we admit such open profaners as this fornicator—and adulterers besides, drunkards, the quarrelsome, the greedy, revilers and idolaters—and do not shun them, then we must always hear this rebuke of Paul, that we are “puffed up” and do not rather mourn, so as to separate such open transgressors from us. O brothers, brothers! I fear that this admonition of Paul is not weighed enough by some. Paul says further, “For I truly, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, concerning him who has done this deed: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” First Corinthians 5, verses 3, 4 and 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 one present in spirit he was fatherly in his concern for them, and always taught, admonished and advised them for their own good.

Second, in whose name, how and by whom this separation is to 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 anything that he had not first received from Christ, as he says. Indeed, 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 to 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 keeping with his holy word and will.

Again, it is to be practiced by the church; that is, not everyone is to 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 is practiced without the word and Spirit, without love and brotherly kindness, whether through bitterness, anger or a false report, not in keeping with the word, for reasons that do not deserve the ban, then it is not a work of God, no medicine for the soul, nor a fruit of pure love, but a quarrel of Satan, a corruption and pestilence to the soul, and a plain fruit of the flesh—in short, a curse, abomination and stench before God. Let everyone weigh these words of Paul well, and by the grace of God he will find how strictly 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.

Third, that we are to deliver an unrepentant transgressor to Satan. Not, brothers, that he was not of Satan before the separation; for as soon as he turned his heart away from the Lord and became ungodly, he became a subject of Satan, just 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 to Satan until he again brings forth true fruits of repentance before God and his church—so that his adulterous, greedy, unruly and idolatrous flesh may be brought to reflect and become ashamed and repentant through such judgment and shunning by the pious; that he may thus subdue and die to his flesh, that is, the lusts of his flesh; and that by these means he may be brought to repentance and his soul be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Here the God-fearing 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 destruction: that if the transgressor rejects as null and void all the brotherly services and admonitions of faithful love shown him and remains unrepentant, then, according to the counsel of the Holy Spirit, the judgment passed on him should with sorrow be made known to him in the church, and that he is separated from the church, so that he may thus be shamed into repentance.

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

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

Ah, faithful brothers, if we rightly understood God, if we were enlightened by the Holy Spirit and loved our neighbors with divine love, how diligently we would be engaged in this matter, following the faithful counsel 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 them greater spiritual love? But as it is, a great many do not seek what is of the Spirit but what is of the flesh; not their neighbors, but themselves. If they do so through ignorance, 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,” Romans 8, verse 6.

In the third place, Paul says, “Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,” First Corinthians 5, verses 6 to 7.

Again, with these words Paul rebukes, first, the Corinthians, and with them all other churches that glory in being the church of Jesus Christ and the spiritual house of Israel, and yet tolerate in their communion such shameful, corrupting leaven as the Corinthians and similar defilers. For how can we glory in the piety of the church and rebuke other churches for their ungodly doctrine and life, so long as we tolerate the same leaven of doctrine and life among us without expelling it? If we are unleavened, why are we not afraid of the leaven, since the apostle tells us that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”?

Second, he gives us outward Israel here as an example. For when they kept the passover, they did not keep leavened bread in their houses for seven days. Indeed, if it was found in any house, the souls of that house had to be rooted out from among Israel. Nor was any uncircumcised or unclean person to eat of it. Oh, brothers, if the figure and shadow had to be so pure, how much purer should the reality be? For our passover is not a four-footed beast, but the spotless Lamb of God, Christ Jesus. Nor does our passover last seven days, as the passover of Israel did; it lasts forever, namely, from the offering of Christ until the last day. Nor is it kept with unleavened bread baked from flour, but with the unleavened bread of righteousness and with the word of eternal truth.

Therefore, beloved brothers, let us keep this passover holy and unspotted to the best of our ability, and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ let us separate from us the corrupting leaven—that is, all who walk in the foreskin of their hearts, and all who are impure in life (understand: open, known transgressors)—that we may be the holy Israel of God, sprinkled 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 keep it all the days of our lives.

Further, all the pious may learn from these words of Paul, “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” the second reason why this separation is so necessary and useful to the house of God, and that the house cannot stand without it. This was shown in Israel. Moses, the faithful servant of God, strictly commanded the people of God to destroy from among them without mercy the willful 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 listen to them, but destroy them. Again, the father was not to excuse his child, nor the husband his wife, and so on, but their hand was to be first upon them. They were also to level and destroy any city that went after other gods, so that Israel might hear these things, fear God, and no longer practice such evil. I think this was a strict separation that was commanded Israel. If they had stood firm and unchanging in it, had followed the command, counsel, teaching and admonition of God according to the Scriptures, and had destroyed the false prophets and idolaters, they would never have become so estranged from God, nor come to such deadly whoring and degeneration (understand this as under the law). For the rejection of the counsel and will of God will never go unpunished, Deuteronomy 13, verses 5 and 7; Deuteronomy 17, verse 11; Deuteronomy 19, verse 15; Hebrews 10, verse 18. [Note 2]

But now the Holy Spirit does not teach us to destroy the wicked, as Israel did, but to separate them from the church with reluctance, and that in the name of the Lord, by the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit; for a little leaven leavens the whole lump. There is a common saying: One scabby sheep spoils the whole flock. In Israel the lepers were not allowed among the healthy, but had to be separated until they were cured. O brothers 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 people from among us: not to listen to the words of the false prophets, for they deceive us; to separate from those who, contrary to apostolic doctrine, cause offense and contention; to shun those who are not pleased with the wholesome words and doctrine of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, but are contentious and eager to quarrel, and so on; to beware of dogs and crafty workers and the selfish; to flee the voice of strangers; to shun a heretic, or a leader of sects, after he has been admonished once or twice; not to greet nor receive into our houses anyone who does not teach the doctrine of Christ; and to withdraw from every brother who acts disorderly and does not walk according to the apostolic doctrine. O, says Paul, that those who trouble you were cut off! Leviticus 13, verse 2; Jeremiah 23, verse 16; Titus 3, verse 10; Second John, verse 10; Second Thessalonians 3, verse 6.

I think, beloved brothers, that the Holy Spirit of God has done well, and has 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—concerning the shunning of heretics and apostates. But if through obstinacy or perverseness we still associate with the leprous, against the faithful counsel, teaching and admonition of God, and mingle with them, then we too will be infected with the same disease. That is the reward of those who know the nature of the disease and yet neither fear nor avoid it.

Tell me, most beloved, is it not the greatest foolishness and recklessness to run willfully and knowingly into the hands of the murderer by opening your house and office to him? 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 mean those who have been of us) and apostates, according to the word of the Lord, whether father, mother, wife, child, relative or friend, or whoever will try to turn you from God and his word and corrupt you by doctrine or by life. Whoever loves anything more than his God cannot be the disciple of the Lord, Matthew 10, verse 37; Luke 14, verse 26. Therefore believe Christ Jesus and sincerely fear him in his word, and you will follow his counsel and teaching. But if you take offense at it, then wait for 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 to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone who is called a brother if he is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not even to eat,” First Corinthians 5, verses 9 to 11.

From these words of the apostle we observe that on a former occasion he had admonished the Corinthians in an epistle to shun the fornicators, the covetous and so on, but they had taken it to mean the fornicators of this world as well. In this epistle Paul admonishes them that this was not his meaning; for if they were to shun such people and have no dealings with them, they would have to go out of the world. But he meant those who are called brothers, as he shows in plain language, saying, “If anyone who is called a brother is a fornicator, or covetous,” and so on, with such a one do not eat—just as the Jews in the time of Christ did not eat with the Gentiles and publicans, nor keep their company; for Christ and Paul are one and not divided, John 4, verse 9.

I think, brothers, that this text is so plain and clear that it admits of no dispute; nevertheless some violate and twist it.

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

Second, they say, “Since Paul mentions the Jewish passover here, and adds that we should keep the passover not with the old leaven,” and so on, this passage, and also his sayings, “Do not keep company with such; do not eat with such,” must be understood to mean a spiritual mingling or communion. To such people 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, always partake of its flesh, always be sprinkled with its blood, and always guard diligently 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 apply to the Lord’s Supper, the eating of which lasts no more than an hour or so?

In the second place we answer: if these words were spoken of a spiritual communion, then the Greek text would have to read choinonia, and the Latin communicatio, for that signifies a spiritual communion—as Christ communes with us and the members of Christ commune with Christ—and also community of property. But the Greek text has a different word, and in Latin it reads: commisceri sive commercium habere, which does not mean a spiritual communion at all, but an outward, temporal communion. And it appears all the more clearly from these words of Paul that he is speaking here of temporal communion and company, and not of spiritual; for he has forbidden this communion with the apostates and allows the communion with the world, which has no spiritual communion with us, nor can have. This is beyond dispute. Indeed, if communion or mingling with the world were forbidden, we could not make use of the necessities of life, but would have to eke out our lives in poverty, destitution, tribulation and misery, First Corinthians 10, verse 3; Acts 2, verse 44; First Timothy 6, verse 18; Hebrews 13, verse 16. [Note 3]

Third, we reply that Paul was referring to common eating and not to the Lord’s Supper; for in Latin he calls it cibum capere (to take food), and not panem frangere (to break bread); and it is plain that nowhere in the Scriptures is the Lord’s Supper called cibum capere. And if it were spoken with reference to the Supper, as some very mistakenly assert, then it would follow beyond dispute that we are free 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 dealing, which is unclean and forbidden 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 pointed his followers to that practice, so Paul follows the doctrine and command of his Lord and Master, Jesus, and says that we are not to eat with such. [Note 4]

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

Dear brothers in the Lord, I would here pray and admonish you all in humility to consider well what the proper meaning of this word commercium (association) is, of which Paul speaks, and how we should understand it, so that you do not give too much liberty to reckless souls, to their own destruction, and do not bind the narrow-minded too tightly, since you have no binding word. For I hear and see—and alas, I have seen too much of it these many years—that some on every hand use neither 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 for the peace, unity and edification of his holy church. Amen.

Since I am an unworthy and humble servant called into the house of God, and sincerely seek the good of my beloved brothers and fellow workers, I will briefly present my views on this communion or mingling according to my talent—views with which I wish to appear before the throne of my Lord Jesus Christ at the day of judgment—and I leave them to be tested by God’s word and by all theologians. My understanding, then, of commisceri or commercium habere (that is, to mix with or to commune), of which Paul speaks here, is that it means daily communion, company, walk, intercourse, presence, association, conversation and dealing. It does not mean chance conversation or necessary dealings, such as dividing an inheritance, settling debts and similar incidental dealings, or being of service in times of need; for the word commercium does not mean anything so strong. Therefore, in my opinion, some err not a little by giving the phrase “have no company with them” the same force they give to “you shall not steal” and “you shall not commit adultery,” of which Paul testifies that those who are guilty of them shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Their argument is that no is no. Indeed, brothers, if this were the case, who could stand before his God?

Again, if the word commercium, which in our language means a mingling or communion, is to be explained to mean that we are not to speak a word with an apostate, nor have any necessary dealings with him, then the word commercium would be violated, many a pious child would be held back, many an unscriptural act would be done, and the faithful Paul would be rejected. For he says, “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” Second Thessalonians 3, verse 15. Besides, it would bring an evil report on the gospel of Christ.

It is also beyond dispute that the publicans and some heathen lived in Judea, such as Herod, Pilate, Philip, Sisanius, Testus and so on, before whom the Jews had to appear at times. Again, they also had to pay tribute to the Romans, and therefore were sometimes obliged to speak to them and had necessary dealings with them, although they diligently shunned their daily company, conversation, mingling, eating and so on. [Note 5]

Dear brothers, take heed and do not become masters and despisers of the Holy Spirit, so that you do not, through the good opinions of men, make the way narrower or broader than the word, Spirit and example of the Lord make and mark it.

In the fifth place, Paul says, “For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” First Corinthians 5, verses 12 and 13. Here Paul explains his former words: that in his first epistle he did not apply them to those who are outside, for God judges them, and not we. We ought to put away the wicked from among us and commend the world to God.

See, faithful brothers, how fully Christ and Paul agree in the shunning of the apostates, and also how earnestly Paul taught and maintained this separation—indeed, that in so short a chapter he enjoined the practice of this ban six times:

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

“To deliver such a one to Satan.”

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

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

“With such a one not even to eat.”

“Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” First Corinthians 5, verses 2, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13.

All these are found in one short chapter, besides what he taught, commanded and admonished on this matter to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus. John also has briefly made himself clear. I do not see how a God-fearing heart can have doubts about this matter or how it can contradict it, since such good fruits and benefits come from this shunning. But it seems that this vine must have its worms.

Again, the unruly make another objection and say, “When someone is separated from the church, there is no further need to shun him, for he is no longer called a brother.” To such we reply that they should consider, in the first place, that if someone who has acknowledged the Lord’s word and truth, led a pious, evangelical life for a time, and so received baptism, falls away and afterward sincerely repents, he is not rebaptized; for the Scriptures teach only one baptism. But when those who are of the world repent, they are baptized after repentance; for before that they confessed neither word, repentance, faith, righteousness nor baptism, and so 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, verse 5; Second Peter 2, verse 20; Matthew 24, verse 48.

In the second place, we say that the world nevertheless regards them as brothers, and many of them would gladly be greeted as brothers. Therefore it is very necessary to shun them, so that both the world and they themselves may know and understand that we cannot accept as brothers those who are so unclean and blameworthy 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 a practice in the Scriptures to shun anyone so long as he is tolerated in the church; and therefore we should not shun anyone 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, 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 meant to lead him to repentance; and also that we do not guard against the corruption of our own souls.

I trust that this is enough to satisfy every God-fearing heart concerning the words of Christ, Matthew 18, verse 18, and concerning the fifth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and that no more useless twisting, objections and crafty excuses will be made to turn it to the lusts of the flesh; for they can stand no better than stubble before the fire, or ice before heat. Indeed, from these same words of Christ and of Paul it appears clearly how, when, where, in what spirit, by whom, on whom and for what purpose this ban is to be practiced. I consider this foundation so strong that it cannot be broken by Christian reasonableness nor by divine truth. Let everyone fear and love his God with all his heart, and he will doubtless receive the true knowledge of this matter and will rightly follow the scriptural practice that pleases God.