Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight we're going to talk about how the early Christians practiced church discipline. I've received quite a few letters from various readers who've asked me about this: did they shun people? Did they publicly rebuke people who sinned in front of the whole congregation, or what? Well, the answer is the same as it is for virtually every subject, every question about the early Christians.
Let's go to the Scriptures, see what the Scriptures say, and let's apply them very literally, very seriously. And you're going to end up with exactly how the early Christians practiced church discipline.
On the other hand, I have to admit that I had some certainly erroneous ideas about church discipline based on my background, and it wasn't until I read the early Christian writings that I was able to more clearly see what the New Testament was saying, to kind of wipe away all of the misconceptions that I had been infused with and be able to just see the Scriptures for themselves, what they're saying.
And so tonight we're going to look at the Scriptures, and we're going to look at what the early Christians said and what they practiced, and hopefully at the end of this you'll have a clearer view of the apostolic practice of church discipline. Now, when I talk about church discipline, I'm not talking about something in the abstract, something theoretical out there. I'm talking about something that I've personally been very intimately involved with on both sides of the issue.
I think as most of you know, I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and I was an elder in the Witnesses for quite a number of years. And Jehovah's Witnesses, which is generally true, I'd say, of most sects or groups we call cults, they usually are more biblical when it comes to things like church discipline, Christian living, some of those things that the more visible, the so-called Orthodox Church, is usually very lax at.
But the problem with most sects and cults is that they usually go way overboard with their discipline. And so, you know, I've seen the two sides. I've been in a traditional evangelical church where church discipline was essentially nonexistent the whole time I was there. I never heard of anyone being disciplined, and there certainly was a good bit of wrongdoing that went on during those years.
On the other hand, as a Jehovah's Witness, I saw how it can be abused and be a very heavy-handed thing that is not done in love, is not done in the Spirit of Christ. In fact, as a Jehovah's Witness, I was also on both sides of the issue, both dealing it out and receiving it. Now, when I was an elder, I was called on quite a few times to have to either publicly rebuke somebody or to disfellowship them. This disfellowship is a term that Jehovah's Witness used, and it means a total ban or shunning of the person.
I mean, originally, even if you were, say, out in the rain, in the cold, your car broke down and you needed a ride and was freezing, and you were a disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witness, a Witness in good standing was supposed to not pick you up, not say anything, not do anything for you, or anything like that. It went so far that if somebody was drowning, a disfellowshipped person was drowning in a lake or something, then most Witnesses would have felt it was wrong to do anything to help them.
So, like I say, what they practiced is a very extreme form of discipline, and we're going to look at whether this is really what the Bible teaches. Now, later, before I left the Witnesses, they eased up a little bit on it and certainly clarified that, no, if someone was drowning, a disfellowshipped person, that you should certainly save their life or something like that. But that's about as far as they went.
Even if it was a member of your own family, a son, a daughter, a mother, a father, well, if you lived with them under the same roof, you could talk with them. But if this was like an adult child who had already left home, you couldn't even talk to them, couldn't even say hello to them. No communication whatsoever. Or similarly, if your parents were disfellowshipped and you had left home, you were an adult, you would not talk to your own parents.
Well, in my later years, as an elder, I began to have serious thoughts about whether this was really Christian. It didn't seem at all to have the Spirit of Christ in it. I saw how harsh we were. Many times I was called upon to disfellowship somebody who had mental problems, and their general attitude was, well, mental problems don't excuse you from anything, as if there really isn't such a thing as mental illness, like this is something you can control. Again, I don't know if they've changed on that.
I left the Witnesses over 25 years ago, but as far as I know, it's still basically the same as it was when I left. And this, among many other things, led me to start questioning the Witnesses, and I eventually realized that they were not God's organization as they claimed, and that they were a false group and that I needed to get out of them.
And the day that I gave my resignation, I immediately found myself disfellowshipped and treated the same way and saw what it was like to be treated that way, where your best friends, everybody you've known and loved your whole life, won't talk to you at all. Now, as I said, that's one extreme, and the other extreme is what you find in almost all churches today, where just about anything goes. Church discipline is almost nonexistent unless you're perhaps questioning the authority of the pastor.
In fact, the only times I hear about church discipline today where someone is asked to leave the church is when they are telling other people in the church the truth about what the Bible teaches, and that will get them put out of the church for doing that. Well, anyway, just giving you that as a brief synopsis of my own life and my own experience with church discipline, that I've been on this at both ends and seen it from a lot of different angles.
Anyway, when I was reading the early Christian writings, I could certainly relate to that whole subject, and it was very clear that the primitive Christians did practice genuine church discipline. They were not like the lax churches of today. And there were basically four levels of discipline in the early church, and I see how clearly this is set forth in Scripture. So we're going to look at the four stages that we have in the Scriptures.
I probably shouldn't say stages, but the four types of church discipline that vary depending on the circumstance and what the sin is that is involved. The first level that I see in the Scriptures, well, the first level, and I'm not calling this church discipline, although I think it could rightfully be included in that, is when you go and talk to a brother or sister alone, as Matthew 16 tells us to do.
If your brother is sin, go talk to him alone, try to work it out, bring them to repentance, and depending on what the sin was, sometimes that's the end of the matter. And that would always be the first stage with, I think, just about any sin. But again, I'm not talking about the stages of dealing with sin, but rather the four categories of church discipline when the private talk does not solve the matter. And the first stage is a public rebuke.
Paul told Timothy, it's 1 Timothy 5:20, "Those who are sinning, rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." Now, if that were done today in most churches, I think, well, frankly, the whole church would be shocked at it, and I think a very large number of the church would quit coming as a result of it, particularly if it was a friend of theirs that had been publicly rebuked. I mean, that's just how lax our professing churches have become today. But the early church did just what Paul told Timothy.
If somebody was in serious sin, then they were rebuked publicly if it was the type of sin that would take care of the situation. For example, Tertullian writes, this is in volume three, page 46, "In the same place also, exhortations are made, rebukes, and sacred censures are administered. That is because the work of judging is carried on among us with great seriousness." Now, here he is explaining to the pagans how churches operate.
He's not saying, "This is what our churches should be doing, they're not doing." He's telling the pagans, "Now, this is how we do things in our church." And sin was publicly rebuked. Not every sin, and I don't really have a list of, "Okay, this sin was publicly rebuked, this sin wasn't." It would depend a lot on the personal judgment of the elders of that congregation as to when they thought it was appropriate.
Clement of Alexandria writes about this as well, volume two, page 228 of the Ante-Nicene writings, "If one must censure, it is necessary also to rebuke, for it is time to wound the apathetic soul. I do not mean mortally, but salutarily, securing exemption from everlasting deaths by a little pain." Now, salutarily means for the purpose of somebody's healing and salvation. It's not ever done in a mean spirit, in a vindictive spirit, but there is a purpose behind it.
He said the purpose is to wound the soul that has become apathetic, to wake them up from their apathy that has led them to this sin. But it isn't intended to be a mortal wound. You don't want to kill them. You don't want to cause them to never come back to Christ by the way that you treat them. But by faithfully wounding them, then hopefully this will bring them to repentance and work for the salvation of their soul.
And this is particularly effective when the whole church is walking in accord with Scripture so that everyone isn't shocked by a public rebuke. Like I say, today in most churches, I think the entire congregation would be shocked and upset if a minister did that. But when a church is following the Scriptures, when there's a sound biblical basis, the church is sad to see a fellow member rebuked, but they're not shocked or upset about it. They know it's done in love. They know it's done for the purpose of salvation.
So public rebuke was the first level of church discipline that the early Christians practiced. Now, the second level is when they were required to treat a former brother or sister as a heathen and a tax collector. This is based on Matthew 18:17. It says, "If he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." I think we're all familiar with this and the steps here in Matthew 18 of trying to save a brother who has sinned.
Now, Jesus doesn't tell us what sins would be such that if the person did not repent, would not even listen to the congregation, that they would need to be treated as a heathen and a tax collector. And again, this was a judgment call that Christian elders have to make. Now, Jehovah's Witnesses applied this very stringently.
And I remember as a teenage Witness in reading about how, or at least their discussion of how this should be applied, they said, "Well, what did it mean to say they should be treated like a heathen or a Gentile and a tax collector?" Well, then they quoted from some Jewish work showing how the Pharisees wouldn't even talk to a Gentile or a tax collector, wouldn't even help them if they were dying. They were sick and needed help.
They wouldn't do anything for them, would refuse to go into their home, would refuse to give them a greeting, anything like that. And so then that was said, "Well, see, that's how we're to treat these people." And at that time, I thought, "Well, yeah, this is biblical. It's right there in the Scriptures." Now, what I didn't realize at that young age was, wait a minute, the issue isn't how the Pharisees treated the Gentiles or heathens and the tax collectors.
It's how did Jesus treat the Gentiles and the tax collectors? We're not following the Pharisees as our example, and we know the rebukes that he gave to the Pharisees, so it would seem like we would be very cautious to do anything that was just the same way the Pharisees did it. But we don't have to guess. We can go to the Gospel accounts and see how Jesus treated Gentiles and tax collectors.
Mark 2:16-17, we read, "When the scribes and Pharisees saw him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to his disciples, 'How is it?'" He's talking about Jesus here. "How is it that he eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?" When Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." So he didn't refuse to mingle with tax collectors and sinners because that was one of the accusations the Pharisees brought against him. Look, he even eats with them, goes into their homes.
I don't know if he went into Gentile homes, but we know the Roman centurion who had the servant who was seriously ill, and Jesus told him, "We all come with you to your home." And he said, "No, if you'll just give the word, that will be sufficient." And that's what Jesus did. So again, Jesus didn't refuse to talk to Gentiles or to even do good things to them because we see those examples where he did that.
We have the example of where he spoke with the Samaritan woman, even though the Jews refused to speak to Samaritans. So what Jesus practiced and what the scribes and Pharisees practiced are two very different things. And if we take treating somebody as a Gentile or a tax collector and we use the Pharisees as our example, well, I think we're going to end up with the same words of condemnation to us that Jesus gave to them. Another example of how Jesus treated heathens tax collectors was the account of Zacchaeus.
This is in Luke 19:5-7. I think all remember the account of Zacchaeus, who was a tax collector, had become very wealthy by being that. It says, "When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and saw him," because as you remember, Zacchaeus had climbed up in a tree where he could get a better view of Jesus when he came, "and said to him, 'Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.'" So he made haste and came down and received him joyfully.
But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, "He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner." See, the Pharisees would have never done that, but that's not how they treated sinners and tax collectors. It's not how Jesus treated them. And please remember that it was only after Jesus did this that then Zacchaeus made his declaration that he was going to give half of what he had to the poor, and anyone he had cheated, he would restore, I think it was fourfold.
So before he even repented, Jesus was willing to stay with him in his house and had no hesitancy to speak with him. Now, why did Jesus do this? Was it because he winked at sin and he loved carousing with sinners? Not at all. The whole reason he did this with Zacchaeus was to bring salvation to him, to stir up his heart, that sometimes people are reached by a harsh rebuke, and Jesus certainly handed those out at various times, and other times people are reached by some kindness and understanding.
And as he said, "I'm like a physician. I'm out here to heal the sick, not to pat the righteous on the back, who usually are self-righteous more than truly righteous." What does this mean then? When he said, "Treat them like heathens and tax collectors," that meant don't do anything to them at all, just, "Hey, eat with them, carouse with them, make them your friend." No, not at all.
As long as you say, Jesus didn't associate with them because he loved ungodly company, but he associated with them specifically to bring them the message of the gospel, and he never ended until he did that. But on the other hand, Jesus and his disciples well knew that no tax collector could be a member of the synagogue. He would not be allowed to read from the Scriptures of the synagogue, to participate in discussions, to have a seat with the congregation of the synagogue.
No, he was banned from those things, and so would have been a Gentile who was not a proselyte who had converted to Judaism. So when Jesus said, "Treat them as a Gentile," which I believe the word is there, or the significance of it, or a tax collector who would have been a Jew, but one who was in everyone's eyes a sinner, he's saying, "Okay, these people are banned from any of the sacred functions.
They are not a member in good standing of the congregation, or they can't be a member at all." So there was a very severe discipline involved, but the discipline wasn't, "Oh, don't talk to them, don't try to help them, refuse to go into their home." See, that's following the footsteps of the Pharisees, not in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. So Matthew 18 doesn't refer to shunning someone. It doesn't refer to banning them from any social activity, talking with them.
It refers to banning someone from sacred things, and once again, for the sole purpose of bringing them to repentance, not of trying to be mean to them. So this is the most common form of discipline that we see in the early Christian writings, that of banning people who sinned from sacred things, from being a member of the congregation. Specifically, this meant that they were banned from communion. They could not receive communion.
Now, I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about communion tonight because we've already discussed that on a previous evening, but in case you haven't heard that message, communion was celebrated every Sunday by the early Christians. In fact, in some of the early periods, it was even celebrated on a daily basis by at least some members of the congregation. And communion to them wasn't simply a symbol. It was a channel of grace. It was a very sacred thing to participate in.
So to be banned from communion was a very serious discipline indeed. Treating someone as a heathen or tax collector wasn't something light, and no baptized Christian would have viewed it lightly. They would have viewed it very seriously that they were cut off from the channel of communication with God's church. We're not talking about verbal communication, but communication meaning communion.
And to die, being put out of the church, put their whole status of salvation in severe jeopardy in the understandings of the early church. But once again, this was never done out of vengeance, or at least not in the early period. Now, later on, wow, particularly when you get past Constantine, it seems like it's so often the righteous who are excommunicated and the wicked never are. But it wasn't that way in the early period. Let me read to you just a few quotes concerning this practice of excommunication.
This first quote is from Clement of Alexandria. He writes, "The physician is not evil to the sick person because he tells him of his fever. For the physician is not the cause of the fever. He only points out the fever. Likewise, he who reproves is not ill disposed towards him who is diseased in the soul, for he is not the cause of the transgressions on him," that is the one giving the discipline.
"The one giving discipline only reveals the sins that are there." See, this again was administered like a physician trying to help the sick. As Clement said again, "God does not punish, for punishment is retaliation for evil. Rather, he chastises for the purpose of good." So this was the spirit of the early Christians. An elder would be a poor shepherd indeed, a poor physician, if he didn't try to cure those who are sick.
And he does this to do this, I should say, is going to require church discipline, not on everybody, hopefully not on the majority, but from time to time, it is going to be necessary. And the pastor who refuses or who is afraid to discipline is not a friend of the flock. And he's going to have, I think, a very severe accounting before Jesus Christ on Judgment Day.
Those quotes from Clement of Alexandria were chapter of not chapter, volume two of the early Christian writings, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, page 231 and page 553. And it's interesting reading Clement's quotes on church discipline because so often today, books describe him as a liberal in the early church. And in some ways, I think he is liberal in some of his views, say, for example, compared to Tertullian, but it's only a difference of degree.
Even someone who would be, quote, "liberal" in that time period was still a strong believer in church discipline. Now, let me read to you from Tertullian, volume four, page 94. He says, "You, the bishops of the church, reply that communion is indeed denied to sinners, particularly those who have been polluted by the flesh. But you say it is only for the present.
You say they are to be restored as a result of penitential pleading in accordance with the clemency of God that prefers a sinner's repentance to his death." Let me explain that quote a little bit. This is one of the later quotes from Tertullian, written about 212. This is after he has become intimately involved in the Montanist movement.
And the Montanist sect did not allow any repentance for persons who committed serious sins, the ones that Paul listed that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. And so they said, "If you've committed adultery, if you've committed an act of idolatry, if you've murdered, if you've stolen from somebody, then in either the Montanist or the church, depending on the situation, you would have been put out of communion.
But in the church, if you repented, then at some point, you would be restored back to communion." Now, this doesn't mean, oh, in a week or two. For example, if you denied Christ during persecution under the threat of torture or even under the duress of torture, you'd be put out of communion for 10 years. You'd have to show repentance for 10 years before you'd be admitted back in as a member of the congregation. I mean, that's how strict the early church was. And the Montanists accused them of being lax.
I mean, Tertullian is saying, "You do this, you know, you allow them back because you talk about God's clemency," whereas the Montanists didn't allow them ever to come back. Now, sometimes banning someone from communion might be only a very temporary thing, something you would do on that particular Sunday.
For example, in Tertullian's discussion of the prayer veil or head covering, he says this, "Until very recently among us," and that would have been in the church in Carthage, "females following either custom, that is, covering their head or not covering their head, were committed, or rather, were admitted to communion with comparative indifference.
The matter had been left up to choice for each virgin either to veil herself or expose herself." Now, I'll explain that quote just briefly, and I discuss it in a lot more detail in the message I think I delivered about a month ago on the prayer covering.
But Tertullian's essay on the subject was concerning the issue, and the only issue involving the head covering was whether Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11 applied to all females or only to married women, because when he says, "I want the women to pray this way," well, the Greek word for woman was also the term normally used for wife, and it's the same man and husband. And so some churches allowed their virgin, their single females, not to be covered, and other churches required them to be covered.
And he's saying there in Carthage, until recently, he said that either it was left up to the virgin whether to do this or not. Either one would be admitted into communion. But in other churches, if you were a woman of age, a female of age, and you were not covered, then you would not have been allowed to receive communion that Sunday. And of course, if you refused to ever wear it, well, you would have been permanently banned from communion.
But even if you didn't bring a covering that particular Sunday, and it wasn't your practice to wear one all the time, or you just refused to wear it, whatever thing, well, you were put out of communion for that day. But normally, excommunication, banning from communion, was, like I say, for a period of time, and if the person didn't repent, then it would be for life.
But if they repented, even then, there would be normally a period of time that they would have to remain outside the congregation to make it clear that these are very serious sins, that you don't just lightly go and worship an idol. You don't lightly deny Jesus Christ. You don't lightly commit adultery. Now, move on to the third level.
That was the second level, treating someone as a Gentile or tax collector, which for practical purposes in the early church, this meant that you were put out of the congregation as a member. You were banned from communion. You could attend the meetings as a hearer. That is, you could be there for the sermon, the Bible reading, but then because the usual service, at least in this time period, was you would have worship, prayer, Bible reading, a sermon, and then a collection, and then communion.
And when communion was about to begin, then everybody who was either not a member of the church yet, or, and I don't mean children, but I mean an outsider who was not a baptized Christian, or somebody who was under discipline, had been put out of communion, then they would have to actually leave the room where communion was held, and they weren't even allowed to be part of the general celebration. Now, the next level is to not even have fellowship, to not eat a meal with somebody who has sinned.
We find this next level of church discipline, 1 Corinthians 5:11, "I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother who is a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a reviler nor a drunkard or an extortioner, not even to eat with such a person." Now, Jehovah's Witnesses confounded this passage in 1 Corinthians 5:11 with Matthew 18 about treating someone as a Gentile and a tax collector.
And they would say, "See, if you treat someone like a Gentile or tax collector, it means you don't eat a meal with them." But like I say, we can see from the scriptures that that cannot be the case because Jesus did eat with sinners and tax collectors. So this couldn't be what Jesus meant. But the Bible does say there is a level. There are some sins that if you commit these sins, then you're not even to eat with such a person.
When I was discussing putting someone out of communion, I used the illustration of the head covering, which, like I say, if a married woman refused to ever wear it, then she would have been put out of communion. But she would not have been treated in the manner that he talks to here about, "Don't have any company with that person. Don't even eat a meal with them." See, because that sin of not wearing a covering is not one of the sins that Paul lists here. Okay?
I mean, there are times when someone might be excommunicated for one of these sins, but if they repented, then perhaps they could still have fellowship with them, but they would not be a member of the congregation. On the other hand, if a person committed these sins and did not repent, then not only were they banned from communion, but then the rest of the congregation would refuse to have anything to do with them, would not eat a meal with them, would not fellowship with them in any way socially.
But again, we're not talking about not helping them if they're in trouble, not trying to talk to them and bring them to repentance. Their life is in danger, not doing something to save their life. We're not talking about those kind of un-Christ-like extremes. But the Bible is very serious. You cannot inherit God's kingdom if you do these things. And if the church loves you, they are going to discipline you. Now, it is a shame.
You know, after I left the witnesses, I reflected on the fact that so often people were disfellowshiped, not for breaking one of these laws that Paul talks about, not for one of the sins that are listed there in 1 Corinthians 5, but often it was for simply breaking one of the Watchtower's teachings, something that was their own personal application of a Bible principle. And as often as not, the witnesses are off base on that point anyway. And so, see, they used these passages very wrongly.
And I know a person like me who was just an honest, serious questioner wasn't trying to cause contention. In fact, I didn't. I didn't cause any division or anything. I saw, "Hey, this isn't right. I want to follow Jesus Christ, and I'm on the wrong path." And I was very pleasant, very Christ-like, in explaining that to the leaders of the congregation. I didn't stir up trouble, interrupt their meetings, anything else.
But boy, the minute I said, "I have to leave Jehovah's Witnesses because I'm convinced I'm on the wrong road," then suddenly I became one of these kind of people in 1 Corinthians 5:11, fornicator, an idolater, a covetous person, whatever. I mean, no one could even say, "Hello, David," to me how wicked I had become. And see, that's a gross misapplication of what the scripture is saying.
The same level of church discipline is alluded to, I believe, in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, where Paul says, "If anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed." This stronger measure, which certainly no elder wants to ever have to apply to somebody, and yet sometimes the need is there. And the early Christians did apply this when necessary.
Tertullian writes, "In this example of a leper, the law prohibited any contact with a person who was defiled with sin. The apostle also forbids us even to eat food with such a one, for the taint of sins can be communicated as if contagious wherever a man mixes himself with the sinner." It's in volume 3, page 355.
And he says this, volume 4, page 77, "All the other frenzies of passions beyond the laws of nature, impious toward both the bodies and the sexes, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the church, for they are not sins, but monstrosities." So there were times when a person wasn't even allowed to come into the building where the congregation was meeting. Like I say, this is a third level.
This is not the same thing, the more common form of discipline, where a person was put out of the congregation in the sense that they were not considered a member of the congregation. They were banned from communion. But they could still come to the building and listen to the services, to a degree, I guess, participate individually in worship. People would still call it their home and have perhaps a meal with them, something like that. But there were other sins.
And again, I can't give you a list here when this one did and this one didn't, because often it depended on the situation of how it happened, what the circumstances were, etc. But there were times when somebody was banned from even meeting with the group, banned from any kind of social fellowship from the congregation. But again, there's no example I have been able to find where the early Christians ever applied this to a personal application of biblical principles.
By personal, I mean that a certain church, for example, may have had this and that local application. But one example was the head covering. I don't mean to keep coming back to that, but it serves the purpose very well. There were some churches that required their unmarried females to be covered, certainly during church worship and prayer. In fact, the majority of the churches would have followed that practice. And if you didn't, then you were banned from communion.
But there's no evidence that those churches then would have banned such a woman from even coming to the congregation or refused to have a meal with her or anything like that. But there were sins, gross immorality, things like that, that you would be banned from the church altogether in any form of fellowship or social activity. That concerns me when Christians today apply that sort of discipline to someone who has merely left their congregation to join a different congregation.
Now, there might be times when that could be appropriate depending on the situation, but I think it would be a very rare thing.
But I mean, there are Christians that if you leave their denomination and go to another denomination, you're not involved in any kind of sin other than deciding that theologically they're wrong or that their particular method of administration is not the best, and you would rather fellowship in a similar group, but where things were a little different, that they apply these kind of passages to that where there is no scripture basis for doing that.
Never does Paul say that you would treat those kind of people in the manner that he's talking about. I mean, he lists what sins he's talking about: fornication, adultery, idolatry, things like that. And it's also the other thing I mentioned how Jehovah's Witnesses confuse the second level, to treat him as a Gentile and a tax collector, with this third level. They also confuse both of those levels with the fourth level, where you won't even say a word of greeting to the person.
I mean, not only do you not have a meal with them and have social fellowship, but you won't even give a word of greeting. Now, that's the fourth level. Let's look at that. There's only one place in the Bible where this level is spoken of, and that's 2 John 10:11.
It says, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor greet him, for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." I mentioned earlier this evening that the early Christians didn't practice anything different than what the scripture set out. But until I read their writings, I didn't really understand these four levels. Because, as I said, my background was with Jehovah's Witnesses, who confused all three of these latter ones all in one.
So it was either public rebuke or it was disfellowship. And disfellowship meant wouldn't even say hi to you. And then leaving them and becoming an evangelical Christian and then finding, well, there's no church discipline. So I had a very foggy understanding of the whole subject until I began reading the early Christian writings, and then all of this became so much more clear. Now, did the early Christians apply that verse literally there in 2 John?
The answer is yes, just like they applied virtually any other commandment or teaching you can find in the New Testament. But they applied it only in the situation that John is talking about. And what was that situation? Well, let's go back to 2 John. Verse 7, it says, "He says, 'Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.'" This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
So in verse 10, where he says, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine," he's not talking about a fellow Christian who's got a wrong understanding of the resurrection, a wrong understanding of life after death, or just about any other doctrine of the faith, major or minor. He's talking about, number one, teachers, someone coming to your house bringing a doctrine.
Because, see, in that time period in the church, when 2 John was written, you had lots of itinerant teachers, people calling themselves prophets who maybe were genuine or maybe not, and they would move from town to town. Because during the major era, either I should say, of the New Testament period, that's who the teachers were. You had men like Timothy and Titus and Mark. Sure, the apostles themselves traveled around and preached, but not just them. You had disciples of them.
And as Paul told Timothy, "I want you to train other people so that they can be equipped to teach." And it's particularly once the apostles died and you had these itinerant teachers that you had to be very careful because maybe they were bringing apostolic doctrine or maybe they were bringing a whole new gospel altogether. But there's only even one group of them that John singles out. These were teachers who did not bring that doctrine.
Or as verse 7 explains, these are ones who did not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. But there was only one group who that description fits, and that was the Gnostics. They were the main heretical group in the New Testament, in the late New Testament, and throughout the period of the early church, even beyond the time of Constantine, they were still around in various forms.
And one of their teachings was that everything of this material world was created by a different God, not the God of the New Testament, not Jesus' Father, and that everything material or physical is inherently depraved and corrupt. And therefore, Jesus would not have become an actual man. He only appeared to have become a man. He was not truly flesh. And so that was a nice touchstone. Do you believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? If you couldn't say yes to that, then you were a Gnostic.
And Gnosticism was almost a whole nother religion. In fact, I think it is better classified as another religion because basically it teaches that the whole Old Testament, the God of the Old Testament was a different God. All of the law, all of that was applying to different people, worshipers of a different God, that Jesus was someone who came from another God to try to show the Jews the right way. Let me ask you a question.
Did John tell us to apply this level of discipline, this level four of not even saying a word of greeting? Did he tell us to apply this indiscriminately to any sinner or to any person who holds to a wrong doctrine? No, he did not. He's very specific and very clear that this extreme form of discipline applies to one single situation. And that is if a Gnostic teacher comes to your house or maybe to your house church and wants to teach this false doctrine.
He doesn't apply it to other teachers of false doctrine, of which there were many, but to this one particular heresy. Number one, as I said, it was virtually another religion. And number two, it had put the church in extreme danger because there were a lot of these Gnostic teachers wandering about.
And I think this is the same situation that Paul refers to in his second letter to Timothy, where he says, "Of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins." So even in Paul's day, you had these itinerant teachers who would come around and would try to lodge with somebody, find someone who would receive them into their home, and then turn them away from the pure gospel.
Now, Ignatius, who was a disciple of John, he understood it or at least applied it in this way, not even say any word to them whatsoever.
For example, he says, "It is not, or rather, it is fitting therefore that you should keep aloof from such persons," that is the Gnostics, "you should not speak to them either in private or in public." Irenaeus talking about this situation writes, "All of those who separate from the church and give heed to old wives' tales like these persons are truly self-condemned." Paul commands us to avoid these men after a first and second admonition.
Furthermore, John, the disciple of the Lord, has intensified their condemnation, for he desires us not even to address them with the salutation of rejoice. He says, "He who bids them Godspeed or farewell is a partaker with their evil deeds." Clement of Alexandria, writing about this, says, "He forbids us either to salute such persons or to receive them to our hospitality. Yet this is not harsh in the case of a man of this sort.
But he admonishes Christians neither to confer nor dispute with those who are not able to handle divine things with intelligence, lest through them they be seduced from the doctrine of truth." So there is that very limited situation when we're dealing with a teacher of false religion. And again, this wasn't just somebody who got this doctrine wrong or that one or even a lot of doctrines wrong. Like I said, this was totally perverting the entire gospel that Jesus had handed down.
You could not believe the book to the New Testament and possibly hold on to Gnosticism. And that's why they had their own canon of scripture. It was that far from the gospel truth. So is 2 John then, does that give us a scriptural warrant to shun people today? Well, I think in a very narrowly defined situation it could. The problem is that this is so often applied to situations that don't have anything to do with what John was saying.
It's so often applied to sincere seekers who differ in their understanding of scripture than the group they're part of. Now, again, I think there is a time to put a contentious person out of a fellowship. And I think Jesus would approve of that, even if the contentious person is maybe correct on the matter in dispute, because he doesn't give us authorization to just tear down a congregation and disrupt its meetings because we think that they're teaching something wrong.
If we're concerned about something being wrong, I think we should address the pastor or the elders and talk to them about it. And if they're still certain that they're right or at least not willing to change, then we can politely go somewhere else. But then on the other hand, when somebody does that and they politely go somewhere else, for us to then apply 2 John to them, I think is a terrible sin.
The early Christians applied this intense level of discipline, this level four, only in very limited situations, as I've said. And the type of people that, for example, Ignatius was talking about, let me just read to you. This is volume one, page 69 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. He said, "Therefore, stop your ears when anyone speaks to you contrary to Jesus Christ, who was descended from David and was also of Mary, who was truly born and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate.
He was truly crucified and died in the sight of beings in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, his Father raising him to life. In the same manner as his Father will also raise us up, we who believe in him by Christ Jesus." So see, those were very basic teachings of Christianity. There's very few groups out there today, very few denominations that would not hold to those basic fundamentals of the faith.
But see, the Gnostic teachers didn't even hold to those very basic things. They couldn't believe that believe in a Jesus who was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary, that he was descended from David, that he actually died, that he was truly resurrected. I mean, they had to throw out the whole basis of the gospel to preach their heresy. But the early Christians didn't just apply this indiscriminately to people who held to doctrinal errors. Okay, well, in conclusion, let's just go over what we've talked about.
We've seen that the early Christians did apply the passages of scripture on church discipline very seriously, very literally, but they also applied it in love and not in harshness. They knew that discipline was for the purpose of bringing sinners to repentance and also of warning the rest of the congregation, not ever for vengeance or retribution towards somebody. We saw there's four levels of discipline that they applied. The first level was publicly rebuking a person before the whole congregation.
The second level, the one we read about most commonly in their writings, was banning someone from communion. This was Jesus telling us that if someone doesn't listen to the church, that you're to treat them as a heathen or Gentile or a tax collector. This didn't mean you didn't go into their home. It didn't mean you didn't have a meal with them. It didn't mean you didn't talk to them. But it did mean they could not be a party in communion with sacred things. They could not be a member of the fellowship.
They could not partake of communion with the rest of the members. The third level was where the congregation would not even socialize with a sinning brother or sister, would not have a meal with them, would not go into their house. But at this third level, it doesn't mean they wouldn't speak to them, say hello to them passing in the street or something like that, or it doesn't even mean they wouldn't try to reach them with exhortation, but following what Paul says, that they would not even have a meal with them.
And finally, there's the fourth level, the level discussed in John, or rather 2 John, talking about Gnostic teachers where you would not even let them come into your home or even say a word of greeting to them. And the early church did apply this fourth level when necessary, but it was in that very limited situation to false teachers setting up a whole new religion, a whole new gospel. Well, hopefully most of you are a part of fellowship that exercises church discipline.
You cannot possibly be a biblical fellowship. It's very wrong for a church to call themselves a biblical church if they don't exercise these four levels of church discipline on a regular, normal basis. I mean, hopefully we don't have to exercise these very often, but I mean, it is going to be a normal part of church life. If you're part of a church that does apply these, wonderful. That's what we should be doing.
But make certain you're applying them in love and that you're not confusing all four of these levels and putting them all together on people who aren't deserving of particularly that fourth level or perhaps even that third level of discipline. Let's make sure we do it all things in order according to what has been handed down to us in the scriptures.