========================================================
Part 8 - What about Bible passages that apparently support
shunning?
========================================================
There are
only two Bible passages that are usually mentioned to support the practice of
shunning among the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and 2
John 1:10, 11.
However,
before we examine these passages, it’s important to put them into context. The
early Christian congregation functioned as a voluntary religious association;
this Christian fellowship had its
major expressions in the form of communal gatherings. These events, originally held
once a week, borrowed from existing Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions and
practices in social and religious gatherings and adapted them to the Christian theme
and developed a few new features as well. As a rule, whenever early Christians met as a community, the
central event was the sharing of a meal, typically a supper, or Deipnon, later known as the Eucharistia. Along with it, another
component was the Symposium, variably
comprised of prayers, thanksgivings and blessings, preaching, reading of
scriptures and authoritative writings, singing, prophesying and healings;
naturally, convivial exchange between the members of the community took place
throughout the entire function. In the early days of the Christian
congregation, there weren’t dedicated meeting places – the congregations
gathered in private homes of brethren who generously allowed the use of their
household for this Christian feature. – 1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:23;
Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2
Researcher Valery A. Alikin, in his
excellent study The Earliest History of
the Christian Gathering – Origin, Development and Contento f the Christian
Gathering in the First to Third Centuries (2009) wrote: “The food
and drink consumed at Christian suppers, for example, were often said to
represent Christ, whereas taking the meal was sometimes regarded as a rite
accomplished in remembrance of Jesus. The Christian character of the meal also
led to its being designated by typically Christian appellations, such as “the
Lord’s Supper. (...) The
participants experienced the meal as a gathering of the new family of the
children of God. In their view, it expressed their community and unity “in
Christ.” Looked at sociologically, it helped to mark the boundaries between
them as Christians and the outside world”.
The early Christians understood the
Lord’s Supper as the expression of the congregation’s community with Christ .
(1 Corinthians 10:16) Sunday, the first day of the week, was the day of choice
for the Christian meetings to take place, usually in the evenings. (1
Corinthians 16:2) Thus, Sunday received a special Christian name because of the
communal gatherings that were held on that day. They designation of the Sunday
as the “Lord’s day”, or kuriakh. It
appears that the early Christians of Jewish origin preserved the Sabbath
evening as the family gathering for a meal, but instituted the Sunday – the
first possible evening after the Sabbath – as the evening for the Christian
meal, considered now as of greater value, to the point of outshining and
eventually replacing the Sabbath altogether.
The ordinary pattern of the two-fold communal meal of the
early Christian congregations until the third century usually began with the
participants reclining or sit down by the table; the host would say grace over
the food and the drink. The bread was broken and the participants proceeded to
eat. Bread and wine featured as the main elements of most evening meals consumed
by ordinary people in antiquity, and they constituted the central components of
the Christian group supper. It isn’t clear if other kinds of food and drink
were used during the Eucharistia, but early Christian writers hint that water,
olive oil, salt and herbs, as well as other food items, such as fish or cheese,
might have been used, especially if the occasion was deemed special. In any
case, the Christian supper wouldn’t be considered an appealing ‘banquet’,
except perhaps by the poorest among the community.
The second part of the Christian
meeting was the Symposium. In 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14, the apostle Paul
discusses what takes place during the Symposium. Debates could take place
with unbelievers who accidentally entered into the gathering of the Christian
community. These gatherings were usually full of activities and were joyful
ocasions for those who participated in the fellowship. (1 Thessalonians
1:11-25) Usually, the meeting would involve a ritual form of introductury and/or
fairwell greeting, the “holy kiss”. Paul mentions this in 1 Thessalonians 1:26
and Romans 16:16 and 1 Corinthians 16:20 and 2 Corinthians 13:12. The apostle
Peter also mentions this Christian greeting in the form of a kiss. – 1 Peter
5:14
In the second century, the order of the meetings changed,
mostly for practical reasons: Whereas in the early days the Lord’s supper took
place first, and then the Symposium, later the non-baptized were not allowed to
take part in the Lord’s supper. Therefore, the Symposium would take place
first, and it was opened to everyone, allowing the non-members to leave when it
was over. Only then the faithful baptized members of the congregation would
stay for the celebration of the communal meal.
Early Christian writings, such as the Apostolic Traditions, allow us to conclude that the non-baptized
were not allowed to partake in the “holy kiss” nor in the Eucharistia. The “holy kiss”, originally an expression of
Christian love and fellowship, later became a liturgical act in the gatherings
of the early Christian communities. Again, A. Alikin notes that the context in
which Paul spoke about the “holy kiss” indicates that it was “connected with
the exhortation to greet all members of the community or with the conveyance of
greetings from the community from which Paul is writing. The exchange of the
kiss seems to have been conceived, therefore, as part of the exchange of
greetings between Christians in general: greetings were exchanged between
Christians who were geographically separated; kisses were between Christians
gathered at one place. (...) The phrase “kiss of love” (1 Peter 5:14) clearly
indicates the meaning of the rite: it is an expression of mutual love among
Christians. Just like Paul, the author of 1 Peter gives no explanation of the
recommendation to kiss each other; he clearly supposes his audience knows this
ritual act as well as its meaning. In the Christian communities where the holy
kiss was practised, it was regarded as a manifestation of deep sympathy and a rite of inclusion.” (The bold is
mine)
I would like to underline these two important points:
“Sharing a meal” and “greeting with a holy kiss” were reserved only for the
faithful baptized members of the congregation. Unbelievers and non-iniciated
should not be allowed to partake in these features of the Christian gatherings,
for they weren’t in union with Christ. They weren’t members of the Christian
fellowship. Also, to “receive someone in the household” isn’t a reference to a
mere social interaction – it is a reference to the weekly Christian gatherings
where the Lord’s supper was to be shared by the faithful members of the
congregation.
With the
above in mind, let us now focus on examining the two problematic passages.
Paul wrote to
the brethren in Corinth:
“When
I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in
sexual sin. But I wasn't talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin,
or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this
world to avoid people like that. 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. It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders,
but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who
are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say,
"You must remove the evil person
from among you." – 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NLT
The context
shows that Paul was dealing with a known case of scandalous fornication that
was being tolerated in the congregation. Paul ordered that “you are not to
associate with …” such person. The Greek word used here for ‘associate with’ is
synanamignumi
[Strong’s 4874], which means
literally “to mix up together” or “to keep company with”. It has the added
meaning of “to mix together to influence” or “to associate intimately with”. Nothing
in this expression suggests that this person should never be spoken to. Rather,
the idea is that such person should not be regarded as a close friend, someone
a Christian would socialize with to the point of such association became an
undesirable influence upon the faithful Christian.
The call to
‘remove the evil person from among you’ might suggest that such unrepentant
wrongdoers should be avoided once they have been ‘removed’, or
disfellowshipped, excommunicated and banned from the congregation. However, a
closer look reveals when such restriction in fellowship should take place: “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”… Paul already said that it
wasn’t possible to avoid association with unbelievers who indulged in wrongful
conduct. This advice is specifically aimed at those who claim to be believers,
brothers and sisters in the congregation, who indulge in wrongful conduct in
the same way that unbelievers do. They are the ones whose close association with
should be avoided. These needed be “removed” – either by being denied the full
benefits of close fellowship within the realm of congregation’s worship and
social activities of the brethren, or, perhaps ultimately banned from
association with the congregation.
The reference
to ”don’t even eat with these people”
brings us to mind the Christian sharing in the Eucharistia, the Lord’s supper.
These unrepentant Christians had to be “removed” from the Eucharistia, as they
weren’t any longer deemed worthy of being in unity with the Lord. They were
excluded from the congregational fellowship, and, as per Jesus’ own
instructions: “let him be like an
unbeliever” (Matthew 18:17). Even unbelievers were allowed to attend
Christian meetings (1 Corinthians 14:24), although they were only allowed to
take part in the Symposium part of
the gathering. Apparently, Paul was advocating that unrepentant sinners should
be barred from any participation in
the Christian gatherings, be it the Lord’s Supper or the Symposium. Their very
presence wasn’t acceptable, unlike the presence of unbelievers. Therefore, the
exhortation to stop “associating with” unrepentant sinners who called
themselves brothers meant to stop considering them as brethren in Christ, and
exclude them from Christian fellowship in the context of the gatherings. There
is no indication whatsoever that such restriction would apply to other social
interactions outside the congregation affairs.
This agrees
with the advice given by Paul in another letter to a different congregation:
“In
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to
keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live
according to the teaching you received from us… Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in
this letter. Do not associate with them,
[Greek: sunanamignumi] in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard
them as an enemy, but warn them as you
would a fellow believer. “ - 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15.
The wrongdoer Christian would still be spoken to
and greeted and reasonable encouragement could be given to him, but only outside
the Christian meetings, since the faithful ones should not associate with them.
It would be a contradiction to command the brethren to “not associate” with a
sinner, and within the same sentence exhorting to them to “warn them [the
sinners] as you would a fellow believer”. The only plausible way to do this
would be to bar association with those in the Christian gatherings, while at
the same time, social interaction – albeit perhaps limited – would be entirely
possible outside the congregational context, and even spiritual matters
could, and should, be considered with those who were driven out of the
congregation for disciplinary reasons.
The unrepentant sinner would not be regarded anymore
as a “fellow believer”, but he would still be communicating with his former
brethren, and would still be counted as a potential “lost sheep” who could be
recovered to the fellowship. He would be made feel “ashamed” for being left
aside, or denied fellowship in the congregational worship and social
activities. And nothing is said about denying full fellowship once the
wrongdoing is abandoned, which suggests that such disciplinary action would end
once the wrongdoer repented and readjusted his conduct. Paul concluded that
these are “methods
which I as Christ's minister and apostle follow in the discharge of my
office”…”I think I am giving you counsel from God's Spirit when I
say this”.– 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:40.
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 doesn’t describe a generalized
shunning practice; it simply describes how an unrepentant sinner should be
“removed” from all congregational activity, namely, the communal Christian
gatherings.
What about 2 John 1:10, 11 ?
“If
anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into
your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked
work.” – 2 John 1:10, 11 – NIV
The context
(verse 1:7) shows that John was talking about the antichrists. Who are they?
They are “deceivers, who do not
acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh … Any such person is the
deceiver and the antichrist.”
Contrary to
popular superstitions, the “antichrist” isn’t Satan, not a demon, nor a
specific individual. Any person who teaches that Jesus Christ wasn’t the Son of
God coming in the flesh is an antichrist, that is, someone who opposes Christ.
These can be:
· People
who teach that Jesus Christ is but a fictional character.
· People
who teach that the historical Jesus Christ was just a wise man, but not the
very Son of God.
· People
who pretend to be Jesus Christ.
· People
who pretend to replace Jesus Christ.
· People
who attempt to fight against the teachings of Christ.
· People
who teach that the Son of God never really existed as a material man, but was a
spirit in the material world, and his sufferings and death were just a
theatrical play, as Christ only appeared to have been killed. In the first
century, this was an associated with the Gnostics, especially those who
embraced the heretical doctrines of docetism. It was probably with these in
mind that John wrote about the “antichrists”.
The problem
with the docetic [from a root meaning “illusionism”] doctrine that denied Jesus
Christ’s humanity was that it rendered the resurrection of Jesus Christ unnecessary
and unreal, a fake. Since the resurrection of Christ was key to the entire
doctrinal building of Christianity, to deny the resurrection of Christ was to
deny the entire Christianity. The writings of Paul and John often address this
doctrinal issue, which seems to indicate that it was spreading among the
congregations. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-14; 2 Timothy 2:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:13,
14; 1 John 4:1-3; 5:5, 10
Verse 11
reads in Greek: “ho legõn gar
autõ chairain koinõnei tois ergois autou tois ponerois”, which literally means: “the [one] telling indeed to him
to rejoice partakes in the works of him evil”. The crux in here is the meaning
ascribed to chairain [Strong’s 5463].
The possible meanings are: farewell! be glad! God speed! Rejoice! hail! Incidentally,
there is another term used in the NT for greetings and salutations in the Greek
language: aspasmos [Strong’s 783 –
see 1 Corinthians 16:21]; but undoubtly chairain
was the most usual form of greeting. The Holman Bible Diccionary notes: “Paul transformed the customary greeting charein into an
opportunity for sharing the faith, substituting “grace [charis] to you
and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”. Therefore, the
greeting customarily exchanged between Christians was a form of blessing, an
expression of shared faith. It was more than a customary polite greeting.
With
the above in mind, it’s easier to understand what the apostle John meant by
“anyone who welcomes [or: greets] them
shares in their wicked work”. The point was that, as Christians, they could not
be uttering a greeting of blessing and shared faith with an antichrist, for
that would be a form of sanction towards its teachings. It would be like
saying: “God bless your anti-christian teachings”. Now, if a Christian would as
much as greet an antichrist in such manner, he would be expressing fellowship
towards that person, wishing him success in his false ministry, rejoicing with
him in the propagation of a false gospel. This would equal ‘partaking on his wicked work’.
The
antichrist promoters of docetism would parasitically preach and teach their own
version of Christianity within the congregations that gathered in the homes of
other Christians. Their ministry was extremely subversive to the orthodox,
apostolic teaching about the Christ. Therefore, it was necessary to give strong
advice to the brethren against welcoming such teachers at the congregational
gatherings, or give any sanction – albeit tacit – to their teachings. They were
not to be “greeted” also in the sense that they should not receive the ritual
“holy kiss” of Christian fellowship because they were actually denying Christ.
This would disqualify them to be considered “Christians”, therefore, they
should not be greeted and welcomed as if they were in communion with the
Christian congregation.
Therefore,
when John wrote “do not take them into your house or welcome them”, he
meant to say “do not socialize or in any other way sanction these men when they
approach you with the intent of teaching you false doctrine during your
meetings”. The words of John do not warrant shunning people, rather, shunning
false teachings, by not allowing them any opportunity to expound their false
teachings, thus tacitly sanctioning their ministry. Naturally, in order to
reduce their influence, this would require that the level of socializing even
outside the congregation should be reduced, as Christian fellowship would be
suspended, but it wasn’t required to treat these people as if they were “good
as dead”. That would be unchristian, for even John wrote that “since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another”
(1 John 4:11) True, those who become antichrists are rejecting their sonship towards God, and by extension,
they do not consider themselves brothers and sisters anymore with their former
Christian fellows who acknowledge their sonship towards God. But that doesn’t
authorize a Christian to hate them as people, to wish their doom, only reject
what their ideas stand for, knowing where they originate from.
John’s admonishing strictly applies to “antichrists”, which
attempt to deliberately indoctrinate a Christian in their anti-Christian doctrines.
Consequently, this does not apply to those who are under reproach from the
congregation, or have been disfellowshipped for sins such as immoral conduct, et
al. or have decided to leave the congregation because they’ve lost their
faith or disagree with the leadership or decide to embrace a different
Christian church. Strictly speaking, John’s instructions only apply when
someone from within the congregation (or a former Christian) attempts to
approach a Christian to teach him anti-Christian doctrine. Any such
attempts during a Christian gathering should be entirely shunned; it was
therefore mandatory to withdraw Christian fellowship with such individual and
bar such person from attending these gatherings. Outside the congregation,
however, this would be a matter of personal decision. Each one should
carefully weight the pros and cons of keeping close friendship or
socializing with such person in order to avert spiritual danger. Yet, this
evaluation wouldn’t prevent a polite greeting, or religiously neutral
conversation strictly about other matters of daily life, attempting to recover
that person to the Christian faith, or even assisting such person when in need,
in the spirit of Christian mercy. “Mercy triumphs over judgment”, James wrote.
– James 2:13
Eden
