Disfellowshipping -- Is It Scriptural?

Message

DISFELLOWSHIPPING -- IS IT SCRIPTURAL?

The following article is an excerpt from the book called The "Report" Volume I pages 253-265.

The Watchtower Society's practice of disfellowshipping and disassociation has differentiated them from many other religions of our time. This action taken by the local congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses world-wide is designed to keep the congregation free from the influence of unrepentant wrongdoers who persist in sin. Admittedly, the presence of "leaven-like" attitudes among some in the Christian congregation certainly could present an unwholesome atmosphere within the congregation — that is, if such unrepentant ones were permitted to have a free reign within the ranks of Jehovah's Name people. There is no question or doubt that there is a definite need to keep the Christian congregation clean from any who would persist in a course of gross wrongdoing or sin. It is as Paul recommended to the brothers at Jerusalem in his letter to them as found in Hebrews 12:14-17 which says:

"Pursue peace with all people, and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord, carefully watching that no one may be deprived of the undeserved kindness of God; that no poisonous root may spring up and cause trouble and that many may not be defiled by it; that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like Esau, who in exchange for one meal gave away his rights as firstborn. For you that after ward also when he wanted to inherit the blessing he was rejected, for, although he earnestly sought a change of [Isaac's] mind with tears, he [Isaac] found no place for it."

Yes, "many would be deprived of the undeserved kindness of God," the free flow of the Holy Spirit upon the congregation would be hindered. Yes, many would, no doubt, "become defiled" because of the unwholesome influence of an unrepentant "fornicator" going unchecked within the congregational ranks. There can be no question that the congregation must keep itself clean! Again Paul made this plain statement at 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 while discussing a certain unrepentant fornicator who had gained acceptance among some within the congregational ranks. He pointedly said:

"I for one, although absent in body but present in spirit, have certainly judged already, as if I were present, the man who has worked in such a way as this, that in the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are gathered together, also my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, you hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

Clearly, the Christian congregation has been empowered by the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation to protect it's membership. The Christian congregation has been empowered to remove from their midst, any who would persist in sin and cause the congregation to lose "the spirit" — that is God's Spirit. The Christian congregation has the absolute right to expel unrepentant wrongdoers from their midst. Yes, they must do this to, as Paul said, "save the spirit."

Among Jehovah's Witnesses, the act of formally "disfellowshipping" an individual from their ranks began in the early 1950's. After the "disfellowshipping" system was set up, persons found guilty of transgressing God's Law, or engaging in gross sin, and displaying an unrepentant attitude concerning this course of sin, would be completely cut off from all association with the organizational members, as a form of discipline. However, this particular discipline would also include not allowing the individual to have any verbal contact with other Jehovah's Witnesses not living in his household. No, not even a simple "hello!" Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses world-wide carry on the practice of "shunning." They completely cut such individuals off and have no dealings with them whatsoever. Further, it is claimed that this practice of complete "shunning" is based on 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and as such is Bible-based.

However, an important question that could be raised concerning this practice of complete "shunning" is this:

Is the act of complete "shunning," as taught by the Watchtower Society and practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses in better than 95,000 congregations world-wide, really based upon the counsel Paul gave Christians at 1 Corinthians chapter 5?

DISFELLOWSHIPPING

Disfellowshipping is a term unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. Although this term is nowhere to be found in the Bible, it is appropriate as used by Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. Jehovah's Witnesses realize that many church organization do not make any attempt whatsoever to keep `their flock' free from the wicked vices of the present world of our times. They realize that this unique action really sets them apart from other religions. You may remember, under the article "God's Name People And The Framework of The Truth," it was pointed out the removal of unrepentant wicked individuals from the congregation is actually a fundamental truth or teaching that has been practiced down through the ages by Bible study groups of professed "Christians" for centuries. -- See chart pg. 64 The "Report" Volume I.

Jehovah's Witnesses can testify that this practice really does keep the congregation clean from various sorts of wicked devices perpetrated upon them by those who simply do not want to do what is right. However, even though the `ex-communication' power vested in the church can be clearly established from the pages of God's Sacred Word, could it be that the Jehovah's Witnesses have taken it a step too far, that is in their action of complete "shunning." We remember that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe it is even advisable to say a simple "Hello" to individuals expelled from the congregation. And again, this practice of complete "shunning" is supposedly based-upon 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. Let's examine exactly what Paul said in the following verses. It states:

"In my letter I wrote you to quit mixing in company [sunanamignumi] with fornicators, not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy person and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company [sunanamignumi] with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves."

In the passage you have just read, the Watchtower Society interprets this scripture to mean that there should not be any association whatsoever -- not even the most casual contact, no verbal contact at all. No, Jehovah's Witnesses should not even extend common courtesy by saying a simple "Hello." The Watchtower Society teaches that this complete shunning is necessary, imperative to maintaining a clean environment in the congregation. Notice this comment from the September 15, 1981 pg. 24, 25 par. 21-24 Watchtower which says,

"Would upholding God's righteousness and disfellowshipping arrangement mean that a Christian should not speak at all with an expelled person, not even saying `Hello?'. . . Actually, in his wisdom God did not try to cover every possible situation. What we need is to get the sense of what Jehovah says about treatment of a disfellowshipped person, for then we can strive to uphold His view. Through the apostle John God explains: "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God....If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." -- 2 John 9-11.

The article continues:

"The apostle who gave that wise warning was cose to Jesus and knew what Christ had said about greeting others. He also knew that the common greeting of that time was `Peace.' As distinct from some personal `enemy' or worldly man in authority who opposed Christians, a disfellowshipped or disassociated person who is trying to promote or justify his apostate thinking or is continuing in his ungodly conduct is certainly not one to whom to wish `Peace.' (1 Tim. 2:1,2) And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple `Hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshipped person?"

According to this article, christians should not say a simple "hello" since this is the first step in starting a "friendship." Obviously we can see that this could cause problems, if for instance, the "disfellowshipped" witness works on the same job with another current "witness." Yes, this is clearly going to cause friction, cause problems when co-workers consistently walk by one another and refuse to speak. And of course, if the "disfellowshipped" person works for a "witness," does this mean that the employer can not give verbal instructions to the employee? Can the employer utter a morning greeting to his employees, with the necessary exclusion of the "disfellowshipped" person, without being noticed? Surely this conduct could cause outsiders who do not know much about the Bible, to wonder: "Hey, what's going on here...the boss speaks to everyone but this guy...why???...has he done something wrong...is he going to be fired, etc." These situations and many, many others have been repeated over and over again by the membership of Jehovah's Witnesses because of the organization's stand with regard to verbal communication with "disfellowshipped" persons.

However, thinking individuals among Jehovah's Witnesses could ask the following questions:

1) Is this what Paul actually meant in his letter to the Corinthians, that is that no verbal communications at all is to take place?

2) Did Paul actually mean for the brothers of his day to refrain from giving such individuals the courtesy of saying a simple "hello?"

3) Further, what does the expression "quit mixing in company" really mean?

Since 2 John 9-11 was cited as proof along with 1 Corinthians chapter 5 that no "greeting" should be given to a "disfellowshipped" person or an "antichrist," are we to conclude that these two scriptures are really referring to the same type of individuals? That is, is the "Antichrist" spoken of in John's letter in the `same boat' so-to-speak, as the "disfellowshipped" person spoken of in Paul's letter at 1 Corinthians chapter 5?

First of all, let us take a close look at the expression "quit mixing in company" used at 1 Corinthians chapter 5.

"QUIT MIXING IN COMPANY"

The Greek word for "mixing in company" is sunanamignumi, which literally means, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:

to `mix up together, i.e. associate with; (have, keep) company (with)."

Also, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 601, says of sunanamignumi,

"to keep company with, to be intimate with . . . ,"

The same source further uses 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14 as examples of how the word is used in the Greek text.

This is in contrast with the Greek word "mita." In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, it is interesting to note that this word "sunanamignumi" is shown to mean a much closer association than that of the word mita, which merely denotes:

"accompaniment; amid (local or casual) - general association."

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament also says regarding the Greek word sunanamignumi:

"A fellowship far closer and more intimate than that expressed by mita, although in the N.T. (New Testament) this distinction is much oftener neglected than observed. So from here it can be seen that the word used in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 11 denotes close association, as with a friend, or someone with whom one would normally share a meal with."

Therefore, there is a clear distinction, a clear difference between "general association" as indicated by the word "mita" (as used at Luke 22:37), and what Paul refers to as "close association," as in the word, "sunanamignumi." Yes, this is clearly demonstrated in the Greek language. Thus, we can see why Paul recommended that there should be no "close, or intimate association" or shall we say, sunanamignumi. Think about it.

When we look at the two words, we can see that the expression Paul chose to use really does not, in any way shape or form suggest that one cannot say a simple "hello" out of common courtesy to such an individual. No, but his warning is not to become "intimate" with the individual. However, he could have some "casual," or "general association" since that is what he would have with persons in general. In other words, what Paul wrote at 1 Corinthians chapter 5 does not suggest that a Christian cannot be cordial to "disfellowshipped" individuals. He could have "general or casual association" with such an individual, which is what the scriptures really indicate.

"MARKING" INDIVIDUALS IN THE CONGREGATION — 2 THESSALONIANS 3:14, 15

Paul writes at 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15:

"But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating [sunanamignumi] with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother."

According to the April 15, 1985 Watchtower, page 31, "marking" would apply to individuals that pursue, "an unscriptural course that is very disturbing, though it does not yet justify the `disfellowshipping' action mentioned at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13."

The article goes to say:

"Brothers would not completely shun him, for Paul advised them `to continue admonishing him as a brother.' Yet, by limiting their social fellowship with him, they might lead him to become ashamed and perhaps awaken him to the need to conform to Bible principles."

What is interesting to note here is that the Greek word used for "stop associating" is sunanamignumi, — the same word that is also used in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 11. So, as with a "marked" person, so also with a "disfellowshipped" person, yes, they should both be treated the same. In fact, did you notice that the Watchtower Society specifically says that a "marked" person is not to be completely "shunned?" No, he is not to be "shunned," nor treated as a "enemy," but he is to be to "admonished [or cautioned] as a brother." Nevertheless they were to have no "close association," no "intimate association" with the "marked" individual, that is, until he repented. They were, as the Watchtower Society says, to "limit their association' with the individual. And this `limiting' of association with the individual could indeed `bring him to his senses,' or make him "ashamed" of his past course of conduct, as Paul clearly stated. Yes, he should become "ashamed" of his unchristian conduct. And this point would be brought home to him by a `limiting' of association with him by the congregation. However, he is not to be completely "shunned."

The usage of the same Greek word in both passages of Scripture clearly demonstrates that "marking" and "disfellowshipping," as practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses, are basically the same. Therefore, the penalty exacted upon such an individual, even though on the course of sin, still is, again, based upon the power inherent in the Greek expression. Remember the word simply means "stop association" or "quit mixing in company." No, "sun-anamignumi" does not mean complete "shunning" by any stretch of the imagination. No, not at all. Think about it.

JESUS' WORDS AT MATTHEW 5:43-47 ARE VERY HELPFUL

The words of Jesus at Matthew 5:43-47 uniquely provide the correct understanding to serious student of the Bible on this question of complete "shunning" of individuals. The account emphatically states:

"You heard that it was said [by the Pharisees], `You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' However, I say to YOU: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you; that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Did we get the point that Jesus was making here? Yes, Christians should "greet" all persons, even those who persecute them! That would include even former members of the congregation who had become real "enemies" of the congregation. (See Philippians 3:18) To treat a person otherwise would be indeed expressing a form of `hatred' for the individual and not `love,' which is characteristic of the Pharisees and not Jesus. Think about it. But someone may ask: "Did not Jesus himself teach his followers to practice absolute `shunning' if the person did not listen to reproof or counsel?" To get the answer to that question, let's examine the following information.

"LET HIM BE TO YOU ... AS A MAN OF THE NATIONS OR TAX COLLECTOR"

We now come to another scripture that is frequently used to support the practice of absolute "shunning" by the Watchtower Society. The words of Jesus at Matthew 18:15-17 have been used in an attempt to support this practice. The account reads:

"Moreover, if your brother, commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

Commenting on this scripture, the Watchtower publication Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, pages 142-144 shows this situation to be one that would include: serious sins such as in financial matters, slander and other forms of wrongdoing. And of course, if after repeated efforts to help have failed, and the person reaches the point where he "does not listen to the congregation," then the publication states:

" . . . it may become necessary for the overseers to expel the unrepentant wrongdoer and in that way protect the flock and safeguard the cleanness of the congregation."

And of course, in this case, the person has now become like the unrepentant sinner mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:13. No, he is no longer viewed as a part of the Christian Congregation, but he is to be "treated as a man of the nations, as a tax collector." Therefore, how would a "man of the nations" or a "tax collector" have been treated during Jesus' day? Well, it depends on who is doing the "treating" so-to-speak? If we are talking about how the Pharisees treated a "man of the nations" or "tax collector," we are speaking of one thing. But if we are talking about Jesus and his perspective of how to treat "tax collectors" and even those of the "nations," then we are talking about an entirely different matter indeed. Think about it.

It is a known fact that Jews were notorious in their extremism when it came to their dealings with any person of another nation or any who were in any way, `outside' of Judaism. Yes, the Jews shunned any and all association with "Gentiles" as well as "tax collectors." As the Watchtower magazine itself points out in the 8/1/74 article (pg. 463, par. 16), the Jews would not even help a man dying on the roadside if he were a "man of the nations!" Similarly, we notice that the Watchtower Society advocates the position of treating them as a "pharisee" would treat them. Yes, "let him [the disfellowshipped person] be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector," and thus treat them the way the Pharisee would treat them. — See Watchtower, 9/15/81, pg.18, 15.)

However, it may surprise some Jehovah's Witnesses to know that this has not always been the Watchtower Society's position on this scripture. In fact, the Watchtower Society maintained a different understanding of this very same passage of scripture as expressed in the 1974 Watchtower magazine. And, what was the difference in the explanations? Well, the primary difference in the explanation given in the Watchtower 8/1/74 article and the one given in the 9/15/81 article is this:

"Treat them as a man of the nations" as Jesus would treat them or "Treat them as a man of the nations" as the Jews [particularly the Pharisees] in general felt about them.

Which attitude do you think would be more appropriate for a Christian? Jesus' viewpoint or the Pharisee's viewpoint? To completely clear this matter up, let's consider the following.

HOW SHOULD YOU "TREAT" THEM — AS JESUS DID OR AS THE PHARISEES DID?

Surely, most serious Bible students know quite well that the Jewish leaders, were quite abusive in their use of authority over the Jewish nation. Take for example the tactics they utilized to keep the people from listening to Jesus. Yes, we remember, they threatened `expulsion from the synagogue' if anyone listened to Jesus. In fact, even the Pharisees themselves, were afraid of confessing Jesus as the Christ for fear of being "expelled from the synagogue." (John 12:42) But what did it mean to be "expelled" from the synagogue?

To be "expelled from the synagogue," meant to be completely cut off. It meant being treated as if one were dead. A little Jewish history here might be necessary. If a person were "expelled" from the synagogue but later wished to show repentance and return to the flock, he would have to go unshaven, unbathed, and unkempt for extended periods of time. This made him appear completely loathsome to the Jewish nation for obvious reasons, right??? Also, the Jews were to have no contact with him whatsoever while he was "unsynagogued." And if by chance the person should die, in his "unsynagogued" condition, he was not given a burial place in the Memorial tombs, but oftentimes his body was thrown over the wall into the fiery garbage dump called "Gehenna." (You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth pg. 87 par. 15.) And if by chance, one of them somehow happened to be buried in a coffin, before the burial the Pharisees required the people to line up and throw stones at their coffin. "How awful!", you say. Therefore we can ask the following question: do we not see a very similar situation among the Jehovah's Witnesses under the leadership of the Pharisaical Watchtower Society?

Therefore think! Was Jesus advocating such an extreme position like the one you've just read? Remember, this is the position that is advocated in the 9/15/81 Watchtower article. This is the way the Pharisees felt about people. (See pp. 18-20, par. 15-21) The Watchtower would have us believe that this is the way we should treat people, yes, "disfellowshipped" ones. In fact the Watchtower directly said in this particular article about following Jesus' example in this regard by saying:

"However, Jesus' effort to give a witness to tax collectors who `drew near to hear him' was not a pattern of how unrepentant sinners were to be treated." — pg. 19, par. 15

Do you believe Jesus would approve of such extremism for his disciples? Absolutely not!

Jesus' actions were always in harmony with the Law. However, can the same thing be said of the Jews in general? Did they not put their traditions ahead of God's word?

It was Jesus who taught his followers to be like the "Good Samaritan," who put away any preconceived notion of national pride or prejudice and proved himself to be a real "neighbor" to his fellow man! (Luke 10:29-37) Further, we can say that Jesus taught his disciples to be balanced in their viewpoints and conduct toward "tax collectors" and "men of nations." A close examination of his fine and virtuous life course while on earth reveals this. (1 Peter 2:21) Yes, how did Jesus himself treat the "tax collector" Zac-chae'us? Did he not dine with such a man? — Luke 19:1-10; See also Luke 5:29-32 and Matthew 11:19.

And how did Jesus treat say a "man of the nations?" One has only to read the account at Luke 7:1-10 to learn that Jesus completely ignored the man-made traditions and unscriptural predilections of the Jews. Yes, Jesus had every intention of `entering the home' of this Gentile or "man of the nations" and healing the officer's slave before being stopped by the man himself! And yet we remember, this was something that Jewish tradition [and not Law] strictly forbade. We remember that an "alien resident," [non proselyte] under the Mosaic Law, was to be treated with dignity and respect. The Law specifically called for the Jewish nation to even "love him as yourself!" (See Leviticus 19:33, 34.) Nevertheless, under the direction and teaching of the Pharisees and others, Jews were taught a form of "hatred" toward people of other nations. They were taught that they could not even approach a person of the "nations" without becoming ceremonially "unclean." Some felt that it was "unlawful" to even approach a man of the "nations." Peter aptly stated the fanaticism of the Jews by saying:

"And he said to them: `You well know how unlawful it is for a Jew to join himself to or approach a man of another race; and yet God has shown me I should call no man defiled or unclean." — See also Acts 11:2,3

Therefore, this particular attitude was not of itself a commendable attitude among Jewish Christians. No, not at all. In fact, in spite of Christ's excellent example, (as mentioned at Luke 7:1-10) Peter, at a later time had to be corrected by Paul concerning certain treatment of "gentile" Christians in the area of Antioch. Yes, some of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem evidently felt it was inappropriate to even "eat a meal" with a "gentile" brother. (See Galatians 2:11-14) Clearly, these Jewish Christians were overly influenced by the Pharisees who had become believers! In fact, it was no doubt these same ex-Pharisees who somehow stirred up the greater controversy of whether the Christian "gentiles" should get circumcised or not. — Acts 15:1-3, 5

Therefore, which attitude do you think Jesus, advocated? Do you think that Jesus was really recommending to his disciples that they should treat people the way the Pharisees treated people outside of their "circle?" In fact, we should ask ourselves, when have we known Jesus to recommend any attitude exhibited by the Pharisees as being worthy of imitation? To the contrary, Jesus plainly said of the Pharasees and religious leaders of his day:

"For I say to you that if your righteousness does not abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will be no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens." — Matthew 5:20

Certainly, Jesus Christ would not under any circumstances, recommend the Pharisees and their viewpoints to anyone who wanted to become a sincere follower of his. No, this could not what he meant at Matthew 18:17. Therefore, Jesus did not adopt an extreme viewpoint like the fanatical JEWS of his time and neither did he advocate such a position among his disciples! Yes, Jesus advocated the Golden Rule — "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That was the whole point of the Law Covenant! (Matthew 7:12 KJV) Yes, Jesus prescribed the "merciful" course, as we should do today! — Matthew 5:7.

yorww

____________________________________________________

Questions for article: "Disfellowshipping -- is it Scriptural?"

1. How do the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses benefit from the practice of disfellowshipping?

2. Describe what disfellowshipping, as practiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses, entails?

3. In the 9/15/81 Watchtower, how do Jehovah’s Witnesses justify their use of shunning individuals as part of their disfellowshipping procedure?

4. What questions could a person ask relative to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and what John wrote in 2 John 9-11?

5. What Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 5:9 helps us to understand what is involved in disfellowshipping and if this term includes complete shunning?

6. The Greek word ‘mita,’ also carries the connotation of association but how does it differ from ‘sunanamignumi’ used in 1 Corinthians 5:9?

7. After learning the definition of the Greek word, ‘sunanamignumi,’ used at 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11, would you conclude that Paul was including the injunction not to say a greeting to a disfellowshipped person? How would 1 Thessalonians 3:14, 15 help in determining your response?

8. What can we learn from Jesus’ words recorded at Matthew 5:43-47 concerning how we would deal with all people?

9. Do Jesus’ words at Matthew 18:15-17 to treat an unrepentant wrongdoer as ‘a man of the nation or a tax collector’ support complete shunning as the WTS teaches?

10. To what extremes would the Pharisees go to keep the people from listening to Jesus and what would this mean for these ones?

11. What was Jesus’ attitude towards people of the nations? Base your answer on Luke 10:29-37, Luke 19:1-10 and Luke 7:1-10.

12. According to the Mosaic Law Covenant, how were alien residents, who were non-Israelites, to be treated? How does this contrast with what the Pharisees taught?

13. Would Jesus have advocated the extreme view of the Pharisees? If not, what does Matthew 7:12 show to be the correct way to treat people?

To get the answers for the review questions
CLICK HERE.

***