Should Congregations Vote to Discipline?
Several weeks ago a pastor called, heartbroken and wondering what to do next. The church he pastored (Southern Baptist) had voted down a church discipline matter. The facts were plain: a man in the church had been privately confronted multiple times in accordance to Jesus’ words in Matthew 18, but had only become more rude and more arrogant toward those calling him to repentance. He interrupted the preaching, held secret meetings and slandered those in leadership. Yet, when the matter was brought to the congregation as instructed in Matthew 18:17, the majority of those present voted against calling on the man to repent.
The pastor, who had been at the church less than a year, resigned soon after the vote. The vote proved to him that the majority of church members distrusted the leaders and himself, and did not want to call the individual to repentance. In fact, the man who was exonerated by vote enjoyed a reputation in the church as a significant leader in his own right, thus explaining why they trusted him more than their new pastor. The pastor believed the majority did not want to follow him or the Bible, and now, along with a group of ex-members, has agreed to their request to plant a new church.
What went right
If the pastor was more politically-minded than shepherding-minded he might have encouraged others to simply ignore the rude behaviors and arrogance of the man than privately confront him. But the pastor knew that Jesus’ teaching requires private confrontation, and when a matter of sin is certain and an individual remains impenitent then the matter is to be brought to the church (Matthew 18:15-16). The facts of the situation show that he and others in the church were doing right by being faithful to the church member and the Lord.
What went wrong
When it came to their fellow member and the charge of sin, the members of the church were being asked to act as this man’s judge and jury. Their vote would reveal if they believed him guilty or innocent of the accusation of sin, and either result in an end of the discipline, or a continuation of it. As judges and juries are inclined to do in this world, they judged wrongly. They exonerated a sinning member while losing a pastor who was willing to take a confrontational stand on an issue of sin and righteousness.
Does Matthew 18 teach that the congregation has authority?
Those who believe that the congregation should vote in church discipline cases (a popular practice called congregationalism) insist the entire church is the final authority in judging cases of church discipline because the two phrases in Matthew 18:17, “tell it to the church” and “if he refuses to listen even to the church.”
From these words two conclusions are drawn. First, Matthew 18:15-17 shows an ascending authority from one-to-one confrontation (v. 15) to small group confrontation (v. 16) that ends with church confrontation (v. 17). Therefore, the congregation has the greatest authority. The second claim is that the unrepentant offender can be put out of the church only after the entire church has been involved. In other words, no one can be put out of the church by only a few in the church, such as the leaders. Therefore, the only rightful authority in excommunication is the entire church.
But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16). Nowhere in Matthew 18 does Jesus ask the congregation to approve or disapprove on the evidence of the witnesses and thereby on the guilt and innocence of the offender. Rather, He commands the church members to respond to the certain evidence of the witnesses by submissively confronting the unrepentant member.
The Lord Himself placed the determinative authority of church discipline in the judgment of the two or three. He tasks them, and not the church, with the responsibility to prove unrepentant sin in Matthew 18:16. In the passage, Jesus further explains that He and the Father determine the guilt or innocence in concert with the two or three witnesses before the congregation ever hears it:
If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matt. 18:19–20).
The “two or three” refer back to the agreement of the “two or three witnesses” of verse 16. God the Father and God the Son affirm and defend the work of the two or three witnesses in establishing the factuality of impenitence. Since the first two persons of the Godhead affirm the evidence of the witnesses, what need is there for a church to vote and rule on that which the first two persons of the Trinity have already ratified? Jesus did not say, “If the church agrees about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven,” but “If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.” Thus He exalts the judgment of the witnesses so that the church may hear the witnesses’ testimony as exactly reflecting His own. Jesus did not command the church to establish any facts or to rule or judge on the testimony of the witnesses. The Son of God gave this responsibility to the two or three witnesses alone.
Creating Further Sin
Sadly, men’s ways can get involved in these matters and really make a mess of things. For example, congregational voting in the case of an unrepentant member could create a serious breach of faith with Christ. What if a church decides to discipline out an impenitent member by vote, but some in the church vote not to remove him? Those who vote not to remove the unrepentant member have sinned against the Lord by establishing their own verdict of innocence that opposes what the Lord already ratified (Matt. 18:20). In such a case they have sinned against the Father’s established judgment (Matt. 18:18–19), Jesus’ established evidence (Matt. 18:20), their fellow church members (1 Cor. 1:10), and the two or three witnesses who went through the difficult labor of establishing the evidence (Matt. 18:16). Or, in the case referred to above, the majority of members simply vote contrary to the evidence and annul the discipline process. Based on Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18, they now need to be called to repentance for their sinful vote, not just privately, but before the whole church.
What God Does Want the Church to Do
The difficult ministry in church discipline is not holding a church vote but rather ensuring that the evidence of hardened and unrepentant sin is “true and certain” (Deut. 17:5). That difficulty is followed by another – telling the congregation to fulfill its obligation to the erring member. That congregational obligation is enjoined upon the members to go and tell the impenitent member to repent of the sins they were told about – the sins announced to the congregation that were established as factual.
Like the individual of Mat. 18:15 and the witnesses of Mat. 18:16, the members of the congregation should go and speak to the member, asking him to repent. Jesus teaches the church that if he “will not listen” he is to be put out (v. 17). “Listen” in verse 17 means the same thing as it does in verses 15 and 16. It is the unrepentant man “personally hearing and turning” from his sin. The congregation is not called by Jesus to be the man’s judge and jury, but, as brothers and sisters in Christ, they are to go and try to reclaim a lost sheep (Matthew 18:12–14).
Most of Matthew 18:16 blends Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15, showing that our Lord expects the two or three witnesses to understand their role in light of Old Testament teaching. In those texts, the Old Testament Israelite people were commanded to put to death anyone convicted by only two or three witnesses for sins such as idolatry or homicide. It was not the people’s responsibility to vote on whether the witnesses had performed due diligence and full discovery in establishing the factuality of the accusations. God Himself required the witnesses to do that hard work in submission to local judges (Deuteronomy 16:18), just as Christ tells New Testament witnesses in the New Testament church to “establish the evidence,” who then submit their evidence to the church’s elders.
Having a congregation vote on matters of sin and righteousness is a recipe for disaster. The complexities of people’s sins are intricate and thorny matters that defy public meetings. Church members simply don’t have the heart or time to investigate such matters thoroughly before rendering a judgment, nor do they often have the Christian maturity to do so. This is why witnesses must establish the facts of impenitence under the care of qualified leaders for they are acting to defend the holiness of Christ and His purifying power in the congregation. They establish the facts so we don’t have to.
You see, if we make voting decisions on intricate matters without the enormous amount of effort that Jesus expects of the two or three witnesses we end up practicing the sin of presumption on other people’s guilt and innocence. We also imply that the two or three witnesses were unfaithful to Christ because we, their fellow church members, must approve or disapprove their findings with our vote. In part that is why so few congregational churches practice church discipline—voting makes the process tangled, convoluted, and political.
The role of church leaders
Jesus doesn’t refer to church leadership in Matthew 18, but that doesn’t mean that church discipline should be decided on by just any two or three people in the church. Beginning in Matthew and finishing in Revelation, Jesus reveals the church in “progressive revelation.” What is only sketched out briefly in Matthew 18 is filled in by Acts and the New Testament letters. The apostolic letters always work within the framework of Jesus’ teaching, and their teaching on discipline is no different. Later New Testament passages fully rely upon Matthew 18 but add the details of elder involvement (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:19–22, Titus 1:5–16, 1 Thess. 5:12–14, 3 John 10). At the time of Jesus’ teaching on the church in Matthew 18 no one but Him even knew what a local church was. So He doesn’t give us the details of church leadership in His first teaching on it, but instead gives us the essentials of how to restore a wandering Christian, and how to put an unrepentant person out of His church. Jesus thought it best to leave to the epistles to explain the role of leaders in the process.
In the epistles the elders are called by Christ to oversee and shepherd the flock (1 Tim. 3:1, 1 Tim. 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1), so the witnesses must meet with one or more elders to inform them of the situation. Prior to telling the church of someone’s sin, the elders will look into the matter themselves according to the nature of the situation and the skill of the witnesses. Their role requires them to make certain of impartial evidence and proper confrontation as described by the Lord in Matthew 18 and other New Testament passages.
Conclusion
Jesus doesn’t ask for a vote in Matthew 18 because in matters of sin and righteousness voting is worthless. He doesn’t want you be your brother’s judge and jury but to be involved in the godly work of restoring him as a wandering sheep. Actually, Jesus is merciful to involve you in the restoration process by telling you to go and confront your errant brother. He doesn’t need or want your vote nor is Jesus concerned with the “voice of the congregation.” Instead, His voice tells us to call our wandering brother to repentance. It isn’t obedient to answer Him, “we’ll vote on it.”
Ted Bigelow Bio
Ted Bigelow earned the MDiv and ThM at The Master’s Seminary and has a doctorate in expository preaching from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He pastors Grace Church in Hartford, CT and has been married to Deena since 1987. They are blessed with 4 children who, by God’s mercy, love the Lord: Katie (20), Karryn (18), Daniel (15) and David (13).
- 197 views
[Ted Bigelow] But eisegesis? And an assertion that “This text tells the church to act, it doesn’t specify the methodology”? Let’s look at that together from Mat. 18:15 to 17.:)
Mat. 18:15
If the accuser in Mat. 18:15 sends a letter to the brother he thinks has sinned, does that fulfill Jesus’ words go and show him his fault, just between the two of you (NIV)? Or do Jesus’ words require personal face to face meeting?
Obviously, the first two steps are personal meetings. The second one requires that the two or three go together, right? So if those two steps are normative for the methodology of the third, then the entire church must go together, logically. Of course, this might be a problem in a church of 500 people…. :)
[Ted Bigelow]The church cannot know that unless they have taken sufficient action to ascertain that the accused has refused to hear. There are multiple ways to address this — personal followup being generally preferable. I’m not advocating a letter as the best way, in general.
Let’s assume the church hears the witnesses, votes, and sends a letter to the accused. Can the church know now treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector because they can know the accused has refused to listen even to the church (v. 17)?
[Ted Bigelow] If you agree that the word “listen” in v. 15 and 16 does requires personal confrontation in faithful response to Jesus’ imperatives, go, show, take, and those imperatives are not satisfied in those two verses by sending a letter, on what basis do you take His use of the word “listen” to allow the sending of a letter in v. 17? Is not the meaning of “listen” in v. 17 so well established by v. 15 and 16 that personal confrontation of the accused should be understood by the same word, “listen” in v. 17?Two responses. The first I gave above “take with you” (v. 16), if we’re making that normative, implies that the whole church should go together, which is often not practical. But there’s a second reason. Christ gave specific methodology for steps 1 & 2. He gave no explicit specific methodology for step 3. Why not? You say it is implicit. I say it is because He had specific reasons for the specific methodologies he gave, but once that has been fulfilled, no specific methodology for “hearing from the church” is required for step 3.
He doesn’t even explicitly tell the church to communicate with the accused. It’s obviously implied, but He just doesn’t address it directly at all. And I think we need to be very careful with our “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord chose to remain silent.
[Ted Bigelow]Look at Acts 15. A letter was sent from the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:23 makes clear it was from the entire church), and designated representatives took it to Antioch. This was a serious matter, refuting false doctrine that had been claimed by its teachers to have come from the church at Jerusalem. The entire church signs off on a letter saying, “Not so.”If they send a delegation of selected members who are authorized by the church to say, “The church has heard your matter and calls on you to repent,” they have still confronted him.JG, I like flexibility in policy and ministry, A lot. But let’s reconsider this very specific issue here since it seems to me that Jesus is quite specific in His words. On what basis can the words of Jesus, “and if he refuses to listen even to the church” (v. 17) be recast to mean “authorized representatives of the church”? If Jesus allowed for that, wouldn’t there be someplace in the NT that would show that the apostles allowed for that kind of modification of v. 17?
Who wrote the letter? James and/or other elders, obviously, as representatives of the church, but it was a letter from the whole church. Of course designated/authorized representatives can speak for a church. The individualism that pervades Western thought has no place in the church. To say that every individual of the church must do this, rather than that the church can send the message through elders or other designated individuals, misses the whole point of the unity of the church. We should speak with one voice on such things, and that message hardly needs to be carried by every person individually for it to have full impact.
[Ted Bigelow] JG – consider something else here for a second. If enforcing church discipline means what you say: “obedience to the command not to keep company with the erring brother,” then who is he – an erring brother, or a Gentile and tax collector (Mat. 18:17)?I understand that the relationship between I Corinthians 5, Matthew 18, and II Thessalonians 3 is a point of difference among believers. I’ll just say that I understand these all to refer to church discipline matters, that I Corinthians 5 matters do not, by my understanding, always require exactly the same procedure as does a personal wrong (Mt. 18), but that in either case you end up in the same place. The person is put out of the church, and fellowship with them ends, as far as anything remotely approaching Christian fellowship.
If “enforcing church discipline” means to not have friendly relationships with the one who has been put out, then on what basis does Paul identify such a fully disciplined man (i.e., no longer in the church) as one who is “outside” – and one whom we should say with Paul, What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? (1 Cor. 5:12-13)? Which is it – we continue to treat him as one under discipline – i.e., an errant brother, or as we regard him as being outside the church and therefore we have no business “judging” him?
That kind of drifts off topic, I think, so I’ll defer any further comment on it.
[Ted Bigelow]False dichotomy. Can I choose both? Actually, I won’t choose a vote, so you’ll be happy about that. But I will choose formal assent that this is what the church is doing in obedience to Scripture, and a covenant together to treat the person as Christ commanded. You would do well to call on your people to covenant together in this way as well. It will strengthen them. And if anyone won’t do it, then you’ve got another issue in your congregation you need to address.Whatever your church polity, it is a wise policy, and fits best with Scripture, for the entire congregation to formally assent to discipline. In a congregational church, a vote accomplishes this. In an elder rule church, you can accomplish the same by having the congregation verbally covenant together to uphold their responsibilities towards the person who has been disciplined.JG, which do you think will work more grace and sanctification among a congregation – telling them to go confront the wandering brother for sins X and Y, or holding a vote?
But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16).I was saying that the witnesses are not the judges, but the accusers. I had no conflict with the statement that they were to make a thorough investigation.
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] Ted, I really don’t understand why you concluded that I said that the witnesses first and major task is to accuse. Is it because I did not write, like you, that “they are to make a full investigation”? To me that is understood from the text, and I sensed no disagreement with you on that point. I do not write absolutely everything about a subject when I discuss it. I try to make my point faithfully, relevantly, and succinctly. Here was my conclusion in post 8:Thanks Jeff. My apologies for the confusion. Thank you for the interaction.
“So the point of Jesus in Matthew 18 is to have the original offended take one or two with him, to make the point a serious one (usually church discipline ends here. Being confronted by more than one person in the church has a strong impact). If the person then refuses to repent, the offense is taken to the whole ekklesia. They are, indeed the final arbiter. They do not simply submit to the statements of two or three church members.”
In my conclusion I did not even use the word “accuse.”
But I do indeed affirm that “witnesses” in a biblical sense, in some contexts, including Matthew 18:15ff accuse. Note: 1 Timothy 5:19 “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.”
In the ESV, NASB, and NIV, the Deut 19:16 passage about witnesses is rendered “accuse.”
And here is my disclaimer, When I make a point about a subject in Scripture, this does not mean that I understand this to be the ONLY POINT about the subject, or even the MAIN POINT.
Obviously, the first two steps are personal meetings. The second one requires that the two or three go together, right? So if those two steps are normative for the methodology of the third, then the entire church must go together, logically. Of course, this might be a problem in a church of 500 people…. :)It’s very apparent you have thought a lot about these things. Thanks for the agreement that it ought to work more grace among the congregation to confront an impenitent man rather than to vote on him.
I also think your point that since the 2 or 3 are together in their confrontation suggests then the church should also be together in their confrontation is well-taken. One thing you can check out (to give you another thought on that point) is Jesus’ use of the singular “you” at the end of v. 17. IOW, in His words He shows awareness of individualization within the congregation. One could also argue that members of the congregation, either individually or in groups of 2 or 3 at most, ought to go and confront the impenitent member as a reflection of Mat. 18:15-16. From a practical POV, this would be better since the goal is repentance and restoration, not “ganging up.”
[JG] Christ gave specific methodology for steps 1 & 2. He gave no explicit specific methodology for step 3. Why not? You say it is implicit. I say it is because He had specific reasons for the specific methodologies he gave, but once that has been fulfilled, no specific methodology for “hearing from the church” is required for step 3.JG, I still think you need to consider that the word “listen” in v. 15 and 16 requires the specific methodology of personal interaction from the church to the accused in v. 17. If you want to change the methodology of behind “listen” in v. 17, I think the burden is upon you to show a disjunction at that point. The lack of verbs (“go” “show’ and “take”) in v. 17 are not enough since those practices, once initiated in the process, need not be repeated since the accused is always under obligation to listen. I think if the word “listen” if properly accounted it might make you reconsider what you wrote here:
He doesn’t even explicitly tell the church to communicate with the accused. It’s obviously implied, but He just doesn’t address it directly at all. And I think we need to be very careful with our “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord chose to remain silent.The Lord was silent? He said “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” I don’t see how the church can “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” unless the man has refused to listen to them, nor can I see how the accused can refuse to “listen” to the church if it’s people haven’t explicitly communicated with him.
Look at Acts 15. A letter was sent from the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:23 makes clear it was from the entire church), and designated representatives took it to Antioch. This was a serious matter, refuting false doctrine that had been claimed by its teachers to have come from the church at Jerusalem. The entire church signs off on a letter saying, “Not so.”It does? Perhaps you are reading Acts 15:22 instead of Acts 15:23, because Acts 15:23 claims only the apostles and elders were responsible for the letter’s content: “”The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings” (ESV). If the congregation really was responsible (even partly) for the contents of the letter, or its authority, then Paul and Timothy misrepresented it to the churches planted during the first missionary journey (Acts 16:4).
[Jeff Brown] Perhaps I should add this, Ted: in post ( I was responding to two statements in your article, including this one,And my words could have been clearer on the distinction, which you wisely pointed out!But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence” (v. 16).I was saying that the witnesses are not the judges, but the accusers. I had no conflict with the statement that they were to make a thorough investigation.
[Ted Bigelow] It’s very apparent you have thought a lot about these things. Thanks for the agreement that it ought to work more grace among the congregation to confront an impenitent man rather than to vote on him.What pastor hasn’t thought about them? I don’t think I agreed with you on that point, though. I called it a false dichotomy. :) I am convinced that formal, explicit endorsement of the discipline is extremely valuable, as I stated above. It’s not an “either or” but “and”.
[Ted Bigelow]Context, brother, context. I was talking about methodology. The Lord is not silent on the need to communicate (though it is implicit rather than explicit). He is silent on the methodology. You see Him endorsing a particular methodology here. I see Him as having been very explicit on methodology for the first two steps, but requiring no specific methodology for the third.He doesn’t even explicitly tell the church to communicate with the accused. It’s obviously implied, but He just doesn’t address it directly at all. And I think we need to be very careful with our “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord chose to remain silent.The Lord was silent? He said “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” I don’t see how the church can “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” unless the man has refused to listen to them, nor can I see how the accused can refuse to “listen” to the church if it’s people haven’t explicitly communicated with him.
The church at Jerusalem numbered in the thousands. It is not likely that everyone in the church knew everyone else in the church. Was the accused to receive personal visits from hundreds or even several thousands of people that he didn’t even know? Is that really what Christ commanded? Or did He specifically leave the methodology unspecified because different churches have different circumstances?
[Ted Bigelow]Textual variant. In the KJV/NKJV/TR/MT, it is “apostles and elders and brethren” in vs. 23.Look at Acts 15. A letter was sent from the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:23 makes clear it was from the entire church), and designated representatives took it to Antioch. This was a serious matter, refuting false doctrine that had been claimed by its teachers to have come from the church at Jerusalem. The entire church signs off on a letter saying, “Not so.”It does? Perhaps you are reading Acts 15:22 instead of Acts 15:23, because Acts 15:23 claims only the apostles and elders were responsible for the letter’s content: “”The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings” (ESV). If the congregation really was responsible (even partly) for the contents of the letter, or its authority, then Paul and Timothy misrepresented it to the churches planted during the first missionary journey (Acts 16:4).
The difference matters fro a proper understanding of this particular text, but I’ll defer that discussion. I don’t need that text to prove the point I was making. Jephthah’s letter wasn’t a personal letter, it was written on behalf of a corporate group. I’m sure there are other examples in Scripture, but in any event, this is just the way life works. Shareholders choose an executive, and he communicates on behalf of the corporation. You write letters for your church. They aren’t personal letters. The whole church stands behind them. In Joshua 24, the children of Israel had a message for Joshua. Leaders stood up and spoke to him on behalf of the people. I highly doubt that every single man in the nation came personally to Joshua and said these things.
If the mandate is to communicate something, there is nothing that says every single person must do the communicating individually. It’s a corporate mandate (“the church”).
The individual mandate is in the response to a failure to hear. Every individual on an individual basis is to respond in a particular way to the one who refuses to hear.
Ted, I’m short on time, I have work and ministry responsibilities. I suspect that we’ve both pretty reasonably described our understanding of this passage and how we believe it should be applied. In actual practice, we may not be all that far apart, though our underlying philosophy is somewhat different. In any event, I hope the discussion has been profitable for both of us, but I’ll probably drop out of it at this point.
Sorry to take a while to get back and answer this one.
I will accept your translation of exouthenemenoi as legitimate in this instance, as well as kathizete being in the indicative, rather than the imperative.
Most English translations agree with you. German translations are evenly divided on 1 Cor 6:4, which is perhaps why I would tend to follow the NIV. Likewise, Bauer’s Gk-Dt. Lexicon (on which BDAG is based) translates exouthenemenoi as “lowly esteemed” in 1 Cor. 6:4.
Where are you going with your translation?
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] Ted,Thanks for your consideration on 1 Cor. 6.
Sorry to take a while to get back and answer this one.
I will accept your translation of exouthenemenoi as legitimate in this instance, as well as kathizete being in the indicative, rather than the imperative.
Most English translations agree with you. German translations are evenly divided on 1 Cor 6:4, which is perhaps why I would tend to follow the NIV. Likewise, Bauer’s Gk-Dt. Lexicon (on which BDAG is based) translates exouthenemenoi as “lowly esteemed” in 1 Cor. 6:4.
Where are you going with your translation?
As for me, I would just take “lowly esteemed” as referring to the believer’s proper perspective of this world’s law courts in light of eternity. But I would likely translate it a bit more sharply, as “contemptible” or something like that (Luke 18:9). This translation better represents the moral outrage Paul that I see in Paul here, “I say this to your shame…” (v. 5).
This results, of course, in 1 Cor. 6:4 as not being a command to the church appoint one or more persons in the church to oversee the two aggravated parties. It also has the advantage of delivering us from interpreting Paul as teaching that every believer can do a better job of dealing with law suits among believers than a highly trained judge of this world. We wouldn’t apply that rationale (the Christian can do it better) to any other field (medicine, agriculture, retail, insurance, etc) so why legal matters? I don’t know about your church, but in my church are many dear believers who would be not only be tempted into great frustrations in such a scenario, but they would likely render a really bad ruling on the case, thus aggravating the already existing problems. As a shepherd I hope I would protect them from such activities as being likely harmful to them.
If I’m right, then it might likely mean the two aggrieved parties will not necessarily get a judgment such as a Roman court might give them - and perhaps a more equitable judgment per the realities of this world. But in light of our privilge to “be wronged” and “be defrauded” in this world (1 Cor. 6:7), this one man’s decision could gain for both parties eternal praise from the Lord, who Himself endured so much injustice from sinners against Himself.
So, I take v. 5 as a command/request for one man in the Corinthian church who has wisdom (i.e. some godly discernment, [sophos, 1 Cor. 3:18] ) to volunteer himself (“Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough,” ESV) to make a summary judgment (diakrino, BDAG #4) that not only binds the two parties to his decision (no matter what), but that everybody in church must also go along with (i.e., they don’t have power to overrule, or even weigh in on his judgment. In the U.S. we call it “binding arbitration.”
How does that relate to eldership vis a vis Congregationalism? It goes against both. Just as the church of Corinth didn’t have a plurality of elder-qualified men yet to oversee them, so too the congregation wasn’t given the power of ultimate judgment. I cover it in my book, chapter 13 I think.
Here’s the question I have for congregationalists. If the congregation has the ultimate authority, and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?
The point of 1 Cor. 6 is that the Corinthians should have been ashamed to take matters before unbelievers that they themselves were far more qualified the judge.
[Ted] Here’s the question I have for congregationalists. If the congregation has the ultimate authority, and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?This is not difficult. The apostles are the foundation of the church and were able to speak with the authority of Christ Himself. (Eph.2:20, 1Thess. 2:6, etc.). If we had them around today, it would be entirely appropriate for them to step into local churches and say “Hey, you messed up here. Here’s what you need to do.”
The question that raises is—in the absence of the apostles, where does their authority go? The answer is, the Scriptures—definitely not the elders of the church or the congregation. The congregation’s authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does.
(Let’s not forget that Paul told elders what to do, also, and—through a delegate, no less—held them accountable. 1 Tim.5:19-20)
So the arrangement of authority is hierarchical in the church (as it is in all of creation- e.g., Eph.6:12; 1Cor.11:3) and all levels derive their authority from Christ via the apostles/the Scriptures.
Nobody believes congregations outrank the apostles or the Bible.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I don’t think it’s wise to take such a dim view of “the world’s law courts.” They are appointed by God as His instruments, imperfect though they are. Romans 13:1-4. We are to honor the king (1Pet.2:17)No, you’re quite right. I think what Paul is arguing for in 1 Cor. 6:5 is having a “contemptible” view of the results of human law courts in light of eternity. As believers, we might say, “in light of Christ’s perfect judgment, that will stand forever, the decisions of worldly courts mean nothing.” For example, many Christians are judged guilty of crimes in this world’s law courts and even sentenced to death.
The point of 1 Cor. 6 is that the Corinthians should have been ashamed to take matters before unbelievers that they themselves were far more qualified the judge.I certainly agree with the first part, but it is the second part that I would like to liberate you from :8) It’s in post #83, in the paragraph that begins, “This results, of course….”
Ted wroteHere’s the question I have for congregationalists. If the congregation has the ultimate authority, and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?
This is not difficult. The apostles are the foundation of the church and were able to speak with the authority of Christ Himself. (Eph.2:20, 1Thess. 2:6, etc.). If we had them around today, it would be entirely appropriate for them to step into local churches and say “Hey, you messed up here. Here’s what you need to do.”My answer to your thoughtful post is that the apostles themselves were submitted to Scripture and didn’t lead churches autonomously, or “in addition” to them. Your argument is essentially that 1 Corinthians 6 is an occasional matter that Paul is dealing with as an apostle on an ad hoc basis. Eventually that approach will steal away the doctrinal basis we lean on Scripture for.
The question that raises is—in the absence of the apostles, where does their authority go? The answer is, the Scriptures—definitely not the elders of the church or the congregation. The congregation’s authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does.
(Let’s not forget that Paul told elders what to do, also, and—through a delegate, no less—held them accountable. 1 Tim.5:19-20)
So the arrangement of authority is hierarchical in the church (as it is in all of creation- e.g., Eph.6:12; 1Cor.11:3) and all levels derive their authority from Christ via the apostles/the Scriptures.
Nobody believes congregations outrank the apostles or the Bible.
What I am claiming is that Paul’s approach to the Corinthian law suit matter is not ad hoc, but is in line with apostolic doctrine on congregational authority. If I’m correct, my question has yet to be answered.
I just have to say your comment “The congregation’s authority derives from the Scriptures, just as the authority of elders does” made my day. Absolutely love it!
My laptop battery’s about to go dead so I’ll just say this for now:
The authority of the Scriptures and the authority of the apostles both derives from God Himself. Though the apostles were certainly under the authority of the Scriptures that were in existence at that point, they were in the process of creating more Scriptures.
So it isn’t really valid to put them “under” the authority of what they were still creating.
Simply put, their office included the prophetic office and they were able to speak and write with the same authority as the Scriptures.
Consequently, the idea that Paul was responding “ad hoc” as you put it is not a problem. Much of what’s in the epistles is an apostolic response to particular problems and the interpretive process involves discerning how their handling of particular problems relates to the problems we encounter today. As they deal w/particular problems, they reveal timeless principles.
But there is nobody in the apostolic office today to take their role, so the interpretive process has to account for that.
Since you liked it so much I’ll repeat: the authority of both the congregation and the elders derives from Scripture. Nobody disputes that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Ted, much of your answer is not clear to me……I was trying to be brief, but as you’ll see below, we actually agree.
Though the apostles were certainly under the authority of the Scriptures that were in existence at that point, they were in the process of creating more Scriptures.I think if your laptop battery were better behaved you might like to revise this statement to say something more along the lines of “they received revelation from Christ” rather than “they were in the process of creating more Scriptures.”
But that get does get to my point in the previous post – that you might be implying that the apostles dealt with church problems in an ad hoc manner. I think you would agree they did not “create” Scripture, but acted in submission to the doctrine they received from Christ (John 16:13-15). We do believe in inspiration 0:)
….. “their office included the prophetic office and they were able to speak and write with the same authority as the Scriptures” As they deal w/particular problems, they reveal timeless principles.More specifically, some of their writing, was Scripture, but not all of it, 1 Cor. 5:9. They also sinned and could make errors, something not true of Scripture. Therefore, only some of their speaking and writing was Scripture - there was nothing autonomous in it - which I why I wrote to you: “the apostles themselves were submitted to Scripture and didn’t lead churches autonomously, or “in addition” to them.”
“As they deal w/particular problems, they reveal timeless principles” is all I’m arguing for.We agree. :D
But that still leaves you with a problem. 1 Corinthians 6 shows Paul solving a local church problem with the “timeless principle” that the congregation is not the final arbiter in church matters, nor the highest human authority. Allow me then to repost my question from post 83, with a parenthesis added for clarity:
If the congregation has the ultimate authority (and this is a timeless principle), and obtains this authority from Christ, isn’t Paul sinning against both the Corinthian church and Christ by removing this authority from them and giving it to one man?
[Ted] But that still leaves you with a problem. 1 Corinthians 6 shows Paul solving a local church problem with the “timeless principle” that the congregation is not the final arbiter in church matters, nor the highest human authority. Allow me then to repost my question from post 83, with a parenthesis added for clarity:I think I need to put my argument in different terms, perhaps.
First, the writers of Scripture, both OT and NT wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Though little is revealed about that process, what we find is that the apostles, like the OT prophets, were able to speak and write and direct matters with God’s authority. They were not personally infallible, but whenever inspired spoke or wrote infallibly. Some would insist that only writing prophets were “inspired,” but the point is that they received their message either directly from God and quoted it or received it in a more mysterious way in which they responded to problems they observed, did their own thinking, used their own thoughts and vocabulary yet wrote the very words of God.
The apostles did more than repeat the teaching of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:12). They did create Scripture (though not on their own, of course).
But we’re off topic really. It’s probably not that releveant. What happens in 1 Cor. 6 is that someone at a level of authority, let’s call it level B, stepped into the Corinthian church and commanded the congregation to act. His instructions to them were from his own authority as an apostle, given to him by Christ. Who has authority level B today? Not a person, but the Scriptures—the teaching of the apostles in written form.
So the timeless principle is: “congregation has the task of acting in accordance with Scripture,” not “congregation acts as directed by some elders.” There are no elders in 1 Cor. 6. This is consistent with 1 Cor5.4-5 where Paul instructs the church to gather and act to discipline the immoral professing brother. Why didn’t he simply say “I have judged him, tell him I said he is delivered to Satan”? He doesn’t do that. It’s true he says “I have judged him” but Paul goes out of his way to tell the church to gather and act in concert. They were all fully aware already of what was going on—so they did not have evidence to weigh, etc. But it’s quite significant that the apostle instructs the body to gather and do what it should have already done without him.
Again, no elders mentioned. The body is supposed to do it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So the timeless principle is: “congregation has the task of acting in accordance with Scripture,” not “congregation acts as directed by some elders.” There are no elders in 1 Cor. 6. This is consistent with 1 Cor5.4-5 where Paul instructs the church to gather and act to discipline the immoral professing brother. Why didn’t he simply say “I have judged him, tell him I said he is delivered to Satan”?Glad you brought 1 Cor. 5 into the conversation. I would like to discuss that, but let’s stick with 1 Cor. 6 for now.
You certainly have the right principle: “congregation has the task of acting in accordance with Scripture.” I agree, and that’s the point of the posts. Don’t understand why you brought elders into it: “not congregation acts as directed by some elders,” but again, it’s off topic.
In 1 Cor. 6 Paul counsels the church in concert with Scripture that is 100% written by Paul and 100% written by God, right? Why then, if the congregation is the final arbiter in all matters as the Congregationalist claims, are they not given that role in 1 Cor. 6? If your answer is because that’s what Scripture teaches, then I think you have correctly interpreted the passage.
From there it’s only a matter of recognizing this principle as Scripture’s own, and glorifying God by bringing your church into submission to it.
Nobody teaches that congregations have more authority than Scripture. In 1Cor.6, Paul instructs them to use their authority in obedience to Scripture.
1Cor.5 is relevant because ch.6 is going to be consistent with it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Featured Resource
Discussion