BIBLICAL CHURCHDISCIPLINE

In our earlier article, we saw that the faithful exercise of church disciplineis generally regarded as a mark of a true church. Any church that does notexercise discipline will very quickly discover that it is impossible for her tomaintain purity and unity in practice and doctrine. The duty of discipline is,moreover, clearly taught in the Scriptures, both in the Old and the NewTestaments.

Under the Old Covenant, the Church was the nation of Israel as the covenant people ofGod. Therefore, God instructed Abraham: “And the uncircumcised man child whoseflesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from hispeople; he hath broken my covenant” (Gen 17:14). Circumcision was, therefore,the divinely appointed seal to mark a person as belonging to the covenantcommunity of God (Gen 17:11; Ex 12:48). The Apostle Paul calls circumcision,the “seal of the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:11), because the externalcovenant community or, in other words, the VisibleChurch, is the reflection of “thecongregation of the righteous” (Ps 1:5), namely the Invisible Church.But the Visible Church, being in this world, willcomprise wheat and tares, and when it becomes clear that a person is a tarerather than wheat, then rightly, the person ought to be excluded from thevisible body of believers so as to avoid scandal and to maintain purity. Thus,we find, in addition to civil penalty for various crimes, that the OldTestament saints were instructed to excommunicate or “cut off” members who sinscandalously in various ways. So one who failed to observe the feast of theunleavened bread was to be cut off (Ex 12:15); and so anyone who ate any mannerof blood was to be cut off (Lev 7:27). This cutting off often coincided with thedeath penalty (Ex 31:14), but not always (cf. Lev 18:29; 18:16 with 20:21). Ingeneral, one who is cut off would be regarded as an uncircumcised man—one whono longer has the privileges of a genuine believer in the covenant body. Thus,when the whole congregation of Israel was under discipline in the desert, theirchildren were not circumcised. Only when the nation was ready to re-consecratethemselves to the Lord again,—after all those who have been excommunicated died(cf. Heb 3:19),—were they all circumcised (Jos 5:1–9).

Under the New Covenant, the covenant people of God is no longer confined withinthe boundaries of the nation of Israel, since the unbelieving Jews have beencut off and believing Gentiles grafted in (Rom 11:17). The covenant people of Godis therefore now extended to the world and is the Church Universal as we knowit today. This Church Universal, because of its geographic span, is howeverconstituted of particular churches (WCF 25.4), and so each localchurch (or denomination) becomes an independent entity. Each congregationbecomes an organic expression of the universal covenant body of God. And sincebaptism has replaced circumcision as the divine seal of membership in thecovenant community, all new believers and children of believers (Acts 2:38–39)are to be baptised to be included as members in the church. Baptised members,then, are both members of the particular congregation, as well as, of theVisible Church Universal. The New Covenant Church is, therefore, a continuityof the Old Covenant Church. Such being the case there must surely be some formof church discipline in the New Covenant Church, as in the Old.

Thus, we read of Paul writing to the Corinthians to charge them toexcommunicate a member of the church who was guilty of incest: “put away fromamong yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor 5:13; see verses 1–5). Thus, weread of the Lord chiding the Church in Pergamum for having among them memberswho “hold the doctrine of Balaam” and those who “hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes”(Rev 2:14–15). Similarly, the Lord chided the Church in Thyatira for toleratinga woman by the name of Jezebel who had taken upon herself to teach and seducemembers in the congregation to commit fornication and idolatry (Rev 2:20).

From these passages, and others, we see that the purpose of discipline areseveral folds; firstly, it is for preserving the purity of the church (1 Cor5:6); secondly, it is for maintaining the truth in the Church (Rom 16:17);thirdly, it is for the spiritual good of the members of the church (Gal 1:6–7;1 Cor 15:33); fourthly, and most importantly, it is for upholding the glory ofGod and honour of Christ who is the Head of the Church (Rom 2:24; Jas 2:7).

But how should discipline be conducted? Our Lord gives a rather detailedguideline: “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tellhim his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hastgained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one ortwo more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may beestablished. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: butif he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and apublican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall bebound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed inheaven” (Mt 18:15–18). In other words, four steps are involved:

Firstly, a member of the church, who is hurt by the sin of anothermember or who knows that a particular member has committed a certain immoralityor heresy, should approach the guilty party privately to tell him about hisfault (Lev 19:17; Prov 27:5–6), and to urge him to repent of his sins. Thisshould be the end of the matter if the brother does confess his sin andindicates his repentance. The transgression should be, as it were, forgotten,“for charity shall cover the multitude of sins” (1 Pet 4:8; Prov 10:12). In thecase of immorality or private offence, if the offender should subsequentlycommit the same sin, then the cycle must repeat from the beginning since we areto forgive “until seventy times seven” times (Mt 18:21–22). However, if it is acase of heresy, if the same heresy is asserted again, I believe, the mattershould be brought up to the elders of the church to be dealt with. Paulinstructed Titus: “A man that is an heretick after the first and secondadmonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,being condemned of himself” (Tit 3:10–11).

If, however, despite being approached privately, the offender refuses toacknowledge his sin, then, secondly, the cognisant or aggrievedparty should take with him one or two more persons as witnesses when heapproaches the erring brother again. These witnesses should preferably havethemselves witnessed the offence being committed (Deut 17:6). They not onlyconfirm the judgement of the brother who approached the offending party, butwould serve as witnesses to the fact the erring brother has been approached regardinghis sin. Again, if the offending brother repents, then, after praying with him,he should be forgiven (Jas 5:15) as per step one.

However, if he does not repent, then the third step would beto “tell it unto the church” (Mt 18:17). At this point, the offence, whichhitherto was a private matter, becomes an ecclesiastical matter and is to behandled by the court of the church or the elders comprising the session. Theelders will examine the matter, and if the offender is found to be guilty, theywill call for repentance from the offender. Much care should be taken not tomake the matter public knowledge unless there is real necessity of doing so. Inother words, though the elders should be involved, it should only become apublic if the offence was committed publicly or if the offending party remainunrepentant. Should the offending party repent, he should be restored tofellowship.

If the offending party again refused to repent despite repeated warnings andadmonition, then, finally, the session, representing the church,should excommunicate the offender. In other words, he should be cut off fromthe visible covenant community and denied the privileges of a churchmembership, such as partaking the Lord’s Supper. Should excommunication beimplemented, then it is of necessity that members of the church be informed.

The whole process should always be exercised with prudence and discretion, andwith full dependence on the guidance of the Word and Spirit of God, togetherwith a genuine love for the law-breaker as well as the Law-Giver.Excommunication should only be implemented when all else fails. Even then, itshould be done with the hope that the offender may repent and seek re-admissionto the church. Notice Paul’s statement of intent in two of his harsheststatements of excommunication: “Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I havedelivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim 1:20); and“To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that thespirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:5). Notice that inboth cases, Paul was not only concerned about the purity of the church and thehonour of God, but the final spiritual state of the offender. John Owens issurely right when he asserts: “The nature and end of this judgement or sentence[must be] corrective, not vindictive,—for healing, not destruction” (Works 16.171).Thus, an excommunicated person who demonstrates genuine evidence of repent-ancemust be restored back to fellowship with love and humility (cf. 2 Cor 2:6–8).

Nevertheless, both the offender and the church should take note of the severityof excommunication. The Lord concluded His guideline on church discipline witha statement pertaining to excommunication: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earthshall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall beloosed in heaven” (Mt 18:18). This is not to say that the church has the powerto cast anyone into hell, but it does teach us that, in general, if disciplineis carried out justly and faithfully, and an offending party is excommunicated,it is almost certainly the case that he is a hypocrite heading towards eternaldestruction, and unless he repents, he will face condemnation at the Tribunalof God.

It should be further noted that the civil court should never be used by membersof the church against one another (1 Cor 6:1–8) unless the church has dealtwith the offender and excommunicated him so that he is considered a publicanand heathen man. And even then, the civil court should only be used if acriminal offence is involved or if recovery of losses is absolutely necessary(1 Cor 6:7).

May the Lord grant us that we may not have to exercise formal disciplineprocedures, but when the necessity arises, may we be obedient to the Word ofGod, though it may be uncomfortable, painful and difficult for the all partiesinvolved.

—J.J. Lim