Bulletin Articles
DOES “NOT EVEN TO EAT WITH SUCH A PERSON” HAVE LIMITS?
DOES “NOT EVEN TO EAT WITH SUCH A PERSON” HAVE LIMITS?
“But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person” (1Cor.5:11). This text discusses what we commonly call “church discipline” or “withdrawing fellowship.” It is also the focus of much discussion and disagreement with respect to its proper application. Some have been known to go to ridiculous extremes as they try to apply this passage, especially in the area of family relationships. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether there are any limits to the “non-association” aspect of church discipline.
First, let’s consider some parallel passages and situations, and see if they can shed any light. First, this very text says we are “not to keep company” with disciplined brethren (1Cor.5:11). The very same thing is stated in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, but it adds this thought: “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (v.15). Obviously, one cannot “admonish” without having SOME contact with the erring! Hence, the phrase, “not to keep company,” does not forbid ALL association. Further, in 2 John 10, the Bible says, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him.” Does this mean that I can NEVER have an erring teacher into my home? If so, then what are we to do with Aquila and Priscilla, who “took him (Apollos) home and explained the way of God to him more accurately” (Ac.18:26, HCSB)? Clearly, the proper application of 2 John 10 is to the practice of supporting teachers by allowing them to live in your home (cp. Lk.10:1-7). Simply put, we cannot allow false teachers use our home as a “base of operation” to spread error. On the other hand, we CAN take them into our home to teach them. Hence, the INTENT of our association with the erring is determinative!
Now let’s consider some other facts. When a church disciplines someone, it does NOT mean that their spouse must divorce them – right? Jesus made it very clear that “fornication” was the ONLY reason that one may divorce their spouse (Mt.19:3-9). This means that even if my spouse has been disciplined, I still have obligations to her (e.g., 1Cor.7:1-5). Must I make it clear that she is in sin? YES! Must I throw her out, and refuse to support her or even speak to her? NO! Taking this a step further, if my children are disciplined by the church, must I throw them out, and refuse to support them? NO! What if they no longer live at home? Must I cut off ALL contact with them? NO! Consider: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1Tm.5:8). The phrase, “his own,” is DISTINCT from “those of his household,” and clearly shows that providing for family members sometimes extends BEYOND our household! Does the duty to provide for “his own” stop if they have been disciplined? I think not! And this, of necessity, will involve SOME level of contact with the erring one.
Well, what conclusions can we draw from this information? Obviously, there is a requirement to cut off association in SOME sense with a brother who has been disciplined (1Cor.5:9-11). If we look at the situation in context, perhaps we can gain some insight. You see, prior to Paul’s instructions, this incestuous fornicator was being fully accepted and endorsed (v.1-2). But now, the “approving nature” of their relationship with him must cease! He can no longer be treated as faithful, but must be shown that his conduct is unacceptable. First, his “membership” in the local body is terminated (v.2,4-5,7, and 13). Second, any “social contact” WHICH IMPLIES “ACCEPTANCE” of his sin is terminated – including eating together, as if everything was hunky-dory (v.11). That being said, I can still envision a situation in which one COULD eat with a disciplined brother – IF it was in a context of “admonishing” him (cf. Lk.15:1-7). I say again: the INTENT of our association with the erring is determinative!
Sadly, some have thrown common sense out the widow, and allowed self-righteous and ungodly attitudes to govern their approach to such matters. Brethren, what do we accomplish by making a scene, embarrassing everyone, and walking off from a social gathering “in a huff” because some disciplined brother happened to show up uninvited? No, I do not defend intentionally inviting such a person; but I have seen situations where they show up uninvited. Instead of demonstrating arrogant self-righteousness, why not use the situation as an opportunity to win a soul? Wouldn’t that be a better use of your “outrage?” But even if you disagree with me, I hope this brief study has provoked some deeper thought and study into a very difficult matter. In the final analysis, each Christian must act in keeping with their personal convictions in such matters (Rm.14:22-23).
--Lanny Smith
