To my fellow posters, what I have put together is quite lenghty but I found the information completely inline with the scriptures,customs of the day and the culture, I am not saying that I am completely right but it with the Greek words, context and scriptures it now makes sense about shunning, Please dont think I am trying to teach but rather share with other who go through this horrendous painful experience some relief and hope with their family. I hope that after reading it, many family members will see a different outlook on Dfing and how it should have been handled. It took me some time to compose after researching and I hope you enjoy the info as much as I did. I also want to thank many who helped with info from other posts and emails and with other research from those who studied the Greek language.
Yours truly
abr
A Different SCRIPTURAL view of Disfellowshipping
First I want to say that as a Bible reader I do agree with Disfellowshipping but the way it was meant to be, the purpose of it; to keep the congregation clean, to protect and to shock a person in to their senses. Before you get upset please follow along and consider the scriptural findings and the context of Paul and John’s words or letters to the Christian Canon. First of all to get an understanding of Paul or Johns letters we must have the mind set and customs of the first century and how meetings or gatherings were conducted, their customs and how it should have an impact on us, How does it fit in with being a Christian today, How does it affect our families, How can we live up to other scriptures from the Originator of Christianity, How can we show love to family, How can we show honor to our parents or grandparents and yet follow through with Shunning in accord with the scriptural command. Also the scripture in 1 Corinthians Ch 5 about "not eating with such a man" and 2 John "do not say a greeting" have been combined by the Witnesses improperly as they do "great crowd of other sheep" Note these are two separate scriptures and two different contexts just as John 10 and Rev 7 are two different ones also.
In my reading of 1 Corinthians Ch 5 I find huge discrepancies with the Jehovah Witness’ teaching and how it is used as a weapon, as a tool to keep the flock in it‘s place, to punish people to the point of suicide, mental therapy, to anger, frustration, complete turning away from God and Christ because of this abhorrent teaching. This teaching and manner that is imposed by the Witnesses has had the reverse affect on people as it has not turned the masses back to the congregations and has brought more reproach on Jehovah God and His Son and Christianity that any amount of door knocking could bring good. The reproach and the blood guilt are horrendous. I have never felt the way the Witness have had it, is right because of the conflict with other scriptures mentioned in the Bible, from loving your enemies, if only you say a greeting to those that greet you, honor your mother and father, having no natural affection, and many others that may come to your mind. So in reading and praying on the context of 1 Corinthians Chapter 5, I question why Paul said "not to eat with such a man" Why is that inserted in the context of shunning ones, why that statement?
To me it becomes evident that the first century congregation DID NOT meet as Witnesses today and many other main stream religions. In the Scriptures from the Jews to the Gentiles (Pagans) eating and the taking of meals has always been a part of their worship and the quotes in this format are from other sources and I do not take credit for them.
The first couple of quotes and text are to enhance Paul’s words "not to even eat with such a man" and why it now makes sense he made that statement. In the work done by others it becomes evident that eating of the Lord’s Supper and other meetings included eating with your brothers as part of the Christian meeting and fellowship. This was not a foreign idea but a normal activity among Pagans and Christians alike. Even the Jews during their festivals ate regularly and rejoiced with their brothers of like faith.
Quotes from another source
What Jesus Christ did with the bread and the wine on the night prior to his betrayal was linked to the meal he had eaten with his apostles. Based on the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians, it is evident that the partaking of the bread and the wine was associated with a meal. He wrote: "When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord's Supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?" (1 Corinthians 11:20-22) By failing to show love to their poor brothers, not sharing food with them, the Corinthians could not eat the Lord's Supper. To correct this, Paul admonished the Corinthians to wait for everyone before starting to eat. The Contemporary English Version paraphrases the thought correctly. "My dear friends, you should wait until everyone gets there before you start eating. If you really are hungry, you can eat at home." (1 Corinthians 11:33, 34) The NW, in verses 20 and 33, changes the apostle's meaning by adding "it" in brackets, making the reference to apply to the Lord's Supper instead of the commencement of a meal in which all believers shared.There is general agreement that, in the first century, the partaking of the bread and the wine was linked to a meal. The following are quotations from various reference works: Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: "Certainly by the time of Paul’s writing to the Corinthians (ca. AD 55) it is evident that
that church observed the practice of meeting together for a common meal before partaking of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34). Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "The term [agape] is applied also to the common religious meal which seems to have been in use in the early Church in close relation to the Eucharist. The classic NT ref. is 1 Cor. 11:17-34, where abuses which accompanied the common meals that preceded the Eucharist are condemned." Oxford Companion to the Bible: "The love-feast is the common meal with which Christians first followed Christ’s command at the Last Supper to "do this in remembrance of me." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "In the opinion of the great majority of scholars, the agape was a meal at which not only bread and wine, but all kinds of viands were used, a meal which had the double purpose of satisfying hunger and thirst and giving expression to the sense of Christian brotherhood... At the end of this feast, bread and wine were taken according to the Lord’s command." The Didache, a work believed to have originated in the second century, indicates that a meal was involved. After setting forth what is to be said in conjunction with the bread and the wine, the Didache (10:1) says, "And after you are satisfied thus give thanks:" The Greek word for "satisfied" is a form of emp í mplemi, meaning "to eat one's fill." A form of this word is found in John 6:12. "When they were satisfied, he told his disciples, 'Gather up the fragments left over, so that nothing may be lost.'" (NRSV) "When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples," (NIV) clearly, being satisfied or having eaten all that one desired could not be said of eating a small fragment of an unleavened loaf. Accordingly, the Didache confirms that a meal was involved.After supper thoughts the words "after supper" (NAB, NRSV), "after the partaking of the food" (Wuest), or "after the meal" (CEV) are renderings of the Greek verb deipn
é o. This verb simply means "to eat a meal," the kind of food and the time of day when the eating is done are immaterial. In 1 Corinthians 11:25, we find the infinitive form of this verb, and in Revelation 3:20, we find the first person singular verb in the future tense. The NW rendering "take the evening meal" is misleading, as it implies that a noun is being used in this verse. Other translations provide the correct sense—"we will eat together" (CEV), "eat with you" (NRSV), "dine with him" (NAB, Wuest), and "eat with him" (NIV). The noun form of the verb is dipnoan. It designated the main meal of the day, which was usually eaten in the evening. In itself, however, the designation does not incorporate the word "evening." In view of Paul's use of the expression de í pnon in 1 Corinthians 11:20, clearly more is involved than just partaking of a fragment of unleavened bread. A small piece of unleavened bread does not constitute a main meal. Both Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) and Luke (22:20) indicate that the cup was introduced after the apostles had finished eating. The common view is that this means they had finished eating the meal and the pieces of the one loaf. According to this view, the partaking of the wine followed immediately upon the eating of pieces of the one loaf. This, however, is not necessarily the case. The Son of God may have started the actual meal by breaking the bread and handing it to his disciples. This would have followed the pattern of what is known about ancient Jewish custom. The head of the household, to start the meal, said a prayer, broke the bread, and distributed it. The information that has been preserved in the Scriptural record is too limited for us to be absolutely sure what did take place. What is clear, however, is that, in the first century, the partaking of the bread and the wine was linked to a meal. We live in a different time and a different culture. We cannot fully appreciate the profound change that came about among believers in the first century. It was not a change that was accepted or appreciated by all. The apostle Paul fought hard to preserve fellowship at one table. He did not hold back from reproving Peter . A refusal to fellowship and eat with uncircumcisedbelievers implied that they were still defiled or unclean and, therefore, unacceptable companions. It was only by joint fellowship that believing Jews and non-Jews; men and women; slaves, freemen, and masters could demonstrate their unity as members of Christ's body with an approved standing before God as his children. Some aspects simply cannot be nailed down with certainty. What we can determine, however , is that much of what takes places within the systems professing to be Christian is very different from what occurred in the days of the apostle Paul.From other scriptures throughout the Bible we can see that the distribution of food and eating is a regular activity among first Century Christians, please note the scriptures to name a few. Act 6:1,2 But as the believers [ rapidly multiplied, there were rumblings of discontent. The Greek-speaking believers complained about the Hebrew-speaking believers, saying that their widows were being discriminated against in the daily distribution of food. In 1 Cor Ch 10 eating was a common activity among the Pagans and Paul addressed it as a normal function with regard to any ones form of worship as long as it was not done with idolatry in mind. Later in Jude it is mentioned as such Jude 12 12 When these people eat with you in your fellowship meals commemorating the Lord’s love, NWT
12 These are the rocks hidden below water in YOUR love feasts while they feast with YOUNow let’s take a closer look at Paul’s words in 1 Cor Ch. 5
According to quotes from Charles Hodge D.D.
1 Corinthians 5: 3
3 Even though I am not with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit. [b] And as though I were there, I have already passed judgment on this man 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus. You must call a meeting of the church. [c] I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus. The power was vested in the church of Corinth, and not in some officer presiding over that church. The bishop or pastor was not reproved for neglect of discipline; but the church itself, in its organized capacity.There was to be a meeting of the church, where Paul, spiritually present, would, in the name of Christ, and in the exercise of the miraculous power with which he was invested, delivers the offender to the power of Satan.
1 Cor 5:6,7 6 Your boasting about this is terrible. Don’t you realize that this sin is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old "yeast" by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us.
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. This proverbial expression is not here intended to express the idea that one corrupt member of the church depraves the whole, because, in the following verses, in which the figure is carried out, the leaven is not a person, but sin
1Cor 5:9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin.
Almost all the modern commentators understand it to refer to an epistle no longer extant. This is obviously the more natural interpretation, first, because the words ( _ ?v? t ?t? _ ? p ?p ? ?? s ?s t ?to? ? ???), in the epistle, would otherwise be altogether unnecessary. And, secondly, because this epistle does not contain the general direction not to company with fornicators; which, it would seem from what follows, the Corinthians had misunderstood. There is, indeed, a natural indisposition in Christians to admit that any of the inspired writings are lost. Butnothing is more natural than the assumption that the apostles wrote many short letters, not intended as Pastoral Epistles designed for the church in all ages, but simply to answer some question, or to give some direction relative to the peculiar circumstances of some individual or congregation.
1 Cor 5:11 11 I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.
The command is not to associate with any one who is called a brother, and yet is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer (slanderer), or a drunkard, or an extortioner. A man in professing to be a Christian professes to renounce all these sins; if he does not act consistently with his profession; he is not to be recognized as a Christian .
With such an one no not to eat. This does not refer to the Lord’s supper, which is never designated as a meal. The meaning is, that we are not to recognize such a man in any way as a Christian, even by eating with him. It is not the act of eating with such persons that is forbidden . Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners, but he did not thereby recognize them as his followers. So we may eat with such persons as are here described, provided we do not thereby recognize their Christian character. This is not a command to enforce the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the church, by a denial of all social intercourse with the excommunicated. The command is simply that we are not, in any way, to recognize openly wicked men as Christians. This passage, therefore, affords no plea for the tyranny of Romanists in refusing all the necessaries of life to those whom they cast out of the church.
Commenting further on the subject Barnes New Testament says concerning
Verse 7 leaven and putting it away from us
That is, as ye are bound by your Christian profession to be unleavened, or to be pure. Your very profession implies this, and you ought, therefore, to remove all impurity, and to become holy. Let there be no impurity, and no mixture inconsistent with that holiness which the gospel teaches and requires. The apostle here does not refer merely to the case of the incestuous person, but he takes occasion to exhort them to put away all sin
Verse 11
THIS ENTIRE SEPARATION AND WITHDRAWING FROM all communion was necessary in these times to save the church from scandal, and from the injurious reports which were circulated. I am inclined to the opinion that the ordinary civilities of life may be shown to such persons; though certainly nothing that would seem to recognize them as Christians. But as neighbors and relatives; as those who may be in distress and want, we are assuredly not forbidden to show toward them the offices of kindness and compassion . Whitby and some others, however, understand this of the communion of the Lord’s Supper and of that only.
Moving on to 2 John 6-11
NWT 6 And this is what love means, that we go on walking according to his commandments. This is the commandment, just as YOU people have heard from [the] beginning, that YOU should go on walking in it. 7 For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, that YOU do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that YOU may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
Commentary by Adam Clarke
VERSE 7 For many deceivers, — Of these he had spoken before, see John 4:1, etc. And these appear to have been Gnostics, for they denied that Jesus was come in the flesh. And this doctrine, so essential to salvation, none could deny but a deceiver and an antichrist.VERSE 9 Whosoever transgresseth He who passes over the sacred enclosure, or goes beyond the prescribed limits; and abideth not in the doctrine—does not remain within these holy limits , but indulges himself either in excesses of action or passion; hath not God for his Father, nor the love of God in his heart.
Verse 10 If there come any unto you— Under the character of an apostle or evangelist, to preach in your house; and bring not this doctrine, that Jesus is come in the flesh, and has died for the redemption of the world.
Receive him not unto your house—Give him no entertainment as an evangelical teacher . Let him not preach under your roof. Neither bid him God speed—And do not say, Health to him—do not salute him with Peace be to thee! The usual salutation among friends and those of the same religion in the east is, Salam aleekum, "Peace be to you;" which those of the same religion will use among themselves, but never to strangers, except in very rare cases. This is the case to the present day; and, from what John says here, it was a very ancient custom. We have often seen that peace among the Hebrews comprehended every spiritual and temporal blessing. The words mean, according to the eastern use of them, "Have no religious connection with him, nor act towards him so as to induce others to believe you acknowledge him as a brother."VERSE 11 Is partaker of his evil deeds— He that acts towards him as if he considered him a Christian brother, and sound in the faith, puts it in his power to deceive others, by thus apparently accrediting his ministry. No sound Christian should countenance any man as a Gospel minister, who holds and preaches erroneous doctrines; especially concerning the Lord Jesus . Nor can any Christian attend the ministry of such teachers without being criminal in the sight of God. He who attends their ministry is, in effect, bidding them God speed; no matter whether such belong to an established Church, or to any congregation of dissenters from it. But what St. John says here does not mean that we should deny such the common offices of humanity, charity, and mercy. No. In these offices we are equally bound to all men ; far less does it intimate that we should persecute such on account of their heretical or heterodox sentiments. No. This right has God given to no man, to no Church, to no state. They, who persecute others, even for the worst heretical opinions, may expect the heaviest judgments of Almighty God.
THE BIBLE KNOWLEDGE COMMENTARY
An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary
New Testament Edition
Based on the New International Version
by
John F. WalvoordRoy B. Zuck
VERSE 6/7 verse 6 than the English rendering suggests. A Greek conjunction meaning "because" (hoti) has been left untranslated. The reason for John’s previous admonition is that many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. As in the first epistle, the apostle expressed his concern that many false teachers had arisen (cf. 1 John 2:18 ; 4:1 ). These teachers were "deceivers" (planoi, "ones who lead astray"; cf. planao-, "lead astray," in 1 John 2:26 ; 3:7 ). Their very number (as well as a probable variety of erroneous ideas) made them a substantial threat to Christian churches such as this one. What bound the false teachers and their views together was their unbelief and rejection of Christ’s Incarnation.
The present participle "coming" (in the phrase "coming in the flesh") focuses on the principle involved in the Incarnation: Jesus taking on (coming in) and continuing with a human nature (cf. 1 John 4:2 ). This truth about "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh" is what the deceivers denied. Some taught that Jesus’ body was not truly human; it only appeared that way.
Such a denial marks that person as a deceiver as well as an antichrist.
VERSE 9 The danger is now spelled out clearly. Anyone who runs ahead (proago-n; most mss. read "turns aside," parabaino-n) and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God. These words suggest strongly that the apostle was thinking here of defection from the truth by those who had once held to it. They were thus now ( v. 9 ) cautioned not to "overstep" the boundaries of sound doctrine, but to "remain" where they were, to "continue in the teaching (didache-; cf. v. 10 ) of (i.e., about) Christ." To deviate from the truth is to leave God behind. God is not with a person who does so. What such a person does, he does without God.
In contrast with the defector from the truth, whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. This says that God is with those who persist in the true doctrine about Christ For John, a person who "continues in the teaching" is one who "abides" or "makes his home" there. His connection with the truth is vital and dynamic, so he has a dynamic relationship with God whose commands he
VERSE 10/11 But "continuing" in the truth about Jesus Christ calls for a firm response against those who have become purveyors of false doctrine. Hence John added, If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. In the Greco-Roman world of John’s day, a traveling philosopher or religious teacher was a familiar phenomenon. Christian preachers also traveled and relied on local believers for support and hospitality (
3 John 5-8). But the readers of 2 John were urged to be discriminating. If someone "comes" to them (the implication is "in the role of a traveling teacher ") without also bringing sound doctrine (didache-n), he should be refused help. The Greek verb for "bring" is phero- ("to carry"), which continues the travel motif [3 John 5, 8].) But a deceiver is not even to be given a greeting of welcome, since to do so would be to share in his wicked (pone-rois, "evil"; cf. "the evil one" [to pone-ron], 1 John 2:13-14) work. "Welcome him" (2 John 10-11) is literally,
To some modern minds these instructions seem unduly rigid and harsh. A great part of the problem, however, lies in the modern inclination to be highly tolerant of religious differences. One must frankly face the fact that the New Testament writers did not share this spirit of toleration. Their commitment to the truth and their consciousness of the dangers of religious error called forth many stern denunciations of false teachers. Not surprisingly, this modern age, having a diminishing sense of the dangers of heresy, has lost its convictions about the truth.
But the passage ought not to be taken beyond the writer’s intent. He was thinking about false teachers actively engaged in disseminating error. In this activity they are not to be helped at all. Even a word of greeting might tend to give them a sense of acceptance that could be misconstrued. The readers were to make plain from their aloofness that they in no way condoned the activities of these men.
VINCENT’S WORD STUDIES
48006.VOL. 2
THE WRITINGS OF JOHN:THE GOSPEL, THE EPISTLES, THE APOCALYPSE
by
MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.
Baldwin Professor of Sacred Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York
VERSE 9 Whosoever transgresseth
The best texts read goethonward. So Rev., with takeththelead in margin. The meaning is, whosoever advances beyond the limits of Christian doctrine. Others explain of those who would set themselves up as teachers, or takethelead. Such false progress is contrasted with abiding in the teaching. On the construction, everyone, with the article and participle, see on 1 John 3:3 .
Better, as Rev., teaching.
Of Christ
Not the teaching concerning Christ, but the teaching of Christ Himself and of His apostles. See Hebrews 2:3 . So according to New Testament usage. See John 18:19 ; Acts 2:12 ; Revelation 2:14 , 15 .VERSE 10 If there come any
Better, Rev., ifanyonecometh. The indicative mood assumes the fact: if anyone comes, as there are those that come. Cometh is used in an official sense as of a teacher . See on 1 John 3:5 .
Bring ( f ?f? ? ?? e ?e ? ??)
For the use of the verb see John 18:29 ; Acts 25:18 ; 2 Peter 2:11 ; 1:17 , 18 ; 1 Peter 1:13 .
The conclusion that I have come to is this; In the first century it is evident that eating and meetings went hand in hand. Love feasts and get togethers as Paul had to reprove Peter. It would APPERAR that Paul in 1 Corinthians was telling the "congregation" that they would not include anyone called a brother into such a place of worship and eat with him in this capacity and would be a part of the brotherhood or congregation. However if met outside the congregation they would show him the common courteousy of eating or acting in a Christian way and especially as a family member so as not to bring reproach the congregation in the eyes of the Roman world. This would be in line with what the rest of the scriptures say in showing kindness, natural affection, honoring your parents as long as you did not recognize them in a Christian way or congregational setting.
The other scriptures in 2 John are likewise interesting and should not be put together with Paul’s words in Corinthians. The context says nothing about not talking to a brother , as a matter of fact brother is not even mentioned but rather ANYONE who brought the erroneous teaching that the Christ did not come in the flesh or the teachings of the Christ, The whole concept was false teachers not the congregation or brothers but rather those who would not teach such as this in found at Matt 5:44-48
44 But I say, love your enemies!
Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. 46 If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends,how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48 But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.
The idea also impresses those who would be traveling to homes to spread their false teaching where ironically according to the day is where most Christian meetings were held. However no where in the context does it say brother and again the idea was a greeting of welcoming him and to further his false teaching about the Christ. Christ taught mercy and love, anyone who teaches the Gospel should likewise teach about and also the very foundations of His teachings.
So from what I can see, the idea of Shunning is appropriate in the way it was meant to be done. Without harshness, without bringing reproach on God and Christianity, allowing for the fellowship of family in the proper setting and in accord with Biblical teachings of honoring your parents and loving your children. Not the harshness that is practiced today and then not allowing us to fulfill the rest of our Godly qualities and human kindness to our families and bring honor to God the Originator of the Family. The way the Witnesses do it actually brings reproach on Jehovah God and Christ with a heartless approach and fear of something that is unnatural.
Also in 2 Corinthians Ch 2 the context of the "reinstatement", Paul wrote both letters were within the same year and it would appear that when the wrong doing stopped there was no letter of begging to come back in, also only the majority agreed with the decision and nothing is mentioned to those that didn’t, no reproof, no more DFing of those that didn’t comply, also when the sinner stopped, the congregation was to go and confer their love on the repentant one, not going a year or more and being humiliated and proving for a period of time the wrong doing has ceased. Again the scriptural way, it is love not harsh.
I am not saying this is completely correct but it seems to fit in line with other scriptural thoughts and I appreciate your time and effort in reading this with me. Please add anything that I have missed and let me know your thoughts.
AvidBibleReader