If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you. (Deut 13:6-11)Um ... yeah ... that probably shouldn't be in there. Of course, I'm not advocating that. And it's God's Word, so we can't just ... erase it. What, then?
Consider the context. Israel was a theocracy. The "King" of Israel at the time was ... YHWH. Trying to persuade people to idolatry, then, was the highest form of treason, both politically and spiritually. It is not uncommon for acts of treason to be punished by death. This law, if enforced, would have a devastating effect ... on idolatry. It would protect the community ... not from crime, but from God's wrath. It would protect Israel's position as God's representatives on Earth. It would protect their blessings of being a blessing to all nations. And it demonstrates an issue of vital importance ... God is really serious about idolatry.
We are not a theocracy. We don't enforce worship with force. The Church today isn't national; it's spiritual. We don't get to coerce spiritual purity. So we don't do this now. We don't kill heretics and we don't kill idolaters inside or outside our "nation" (especially since the "Christian nation" is a spiritual nation, not a geographic nation). We do need to understand that idolatry is a serious issue ... especially to God. Replacing God with anything -- fame, wealth, power, self, or any other modern "idol" -- should be met with extreme resistance. It doesn't matter if it's a close family member or a beloved spouse or a dear friend. We are called to "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you" (Col 3:5). Not "coddle it" or "indulge it" or "look the other way." Kill it. No, not physically. Our struggle is a spiritual one (Eph 6:12). I suspect, if we are paying attention, killing it in our own lives will be a pretty long task as it is. But keep in mind ... God is serious about it. We should be, too.
28 comments:
While I agree completely with your conclusion that the punishment aspect of this doesn't apply.
I can't help but think about how often we are pushed to "worship other gods". Money, sex, fame, power, security, self reliance, alcohol, drugs, politics, to name a few. How often we are tempted by fellow Christians to put something else in place of YHWH. While we shouldn't be stoning people for it, we should probably be much more aware of the people who are intent on leading us to worship someone other than YHWH.
Exactly my point, Craig. "We don't stone anyone for it" shouldn't lead us to conclude "It's not so important anymore." Not physically killing people, but it needs to be addressed SERIOUSLY. It's easier to understand, for instance, the instances in Church history where heretics were killed. Not justified, but understandable. It's serious business.
I completely agree that it is very important. I was going at it from a slightly different angle in thinking about how common it is to have people pushing us toward worshiping something other than YHWH.
Yes, our culture isn't silly enough to encourage us to "worship" statues ... but it's perfectly happy to have us worship money and fame and power and ... lots of things.
There is a sense in which we have a lot more options now, yet a sense in which we don't. Strangely enough, there is a faction of christians who might be worse at this than anyone else.
To one who doesn’t know better, that passage from Deuteronomy might seem to be teaching this: (1) No one should ever exchange the religion made known to them by their “fathers”--i.e. convert from the religion they were raised to follow to a different belief system; and (2) If anyone attempts to convert us from that original religion, we should resist them with deadly force (even if they were not themselves resorting to violent or threatening behavior to convert us). I could never concur with those points, of course (and I don’t believe that is how to properly interpret that passage); yet I am mindful of the actions of adherents of several major world religions, who equated nonconformity with treacherous heresy worthy of violent obliteration. It was not even the case that the dissenters (i.e. “heretics”) were actively proselytizing; rather, their crime was simply holding alternate views from the prevailing religious entity.
Fortunately, as a Bible student, I understand the context of that passage and the extreme measures required to keep Israel untainted by the pagan practices and beliefs all around them. The purity of the Church is important as well, but we don’t resort to violence against our unbelieving neighbors in order to follow Christ and serve the one true God. We do, however, have the same outside influences and temptations to be led astray as ancient Israel faced. Yet, the First Commandment stands forever preeminent even in our time, prompting a faithful and pure pursuit of true worship of the one true God. May I never “go and serve other gods … of the people who are around [me].”
As I've gotten older, and become more enamored with the holiness of God, I find myself more amenable to the burning of heretics. Not those that abandon the faith, but those that are leading others away from Christ. It is better that a millstone be put around your neck than to lead these little ones astray. These people that claim the name of Christ but teach others to deny He even existed, or that He died for our sins, or that He didn't die, or that there was no Resurrection are more dangerous to our souls than executing them would be. But, I know I'm a minority in this, and it would never be allowed, but I can see the appeal.
David, I don’t mind telling you that I gasped when I read your comment just now. You describe those that promote false teaching, which many recognize as such through a conscientious study of God’s Word through the Holy Spirit; such false teaching can and is refuted by good teaching, as God has equipped the saints to carry out. Have you thought about which person, board, entity, etc., would decide who is in fact a false teacher and worthy of execution?
If recognizing false teachers were so easy, why are there so many warnings about them? Why are there churches FULL of people believing these false teachers? You and I might be able to recognize false teachers, but the major failing of the Western church is biblical illiteracy. We were promised that there would be those that would try to lead believers astray. Even in the first century the problem was already spreading. When I hear "pastors" and " pastoresses" preaching in direct conflict with Scripture, I get a little mad that God's good word is being slandered and people are being led to hell. So yes, I'd rather kill a teaching heretic than let them lead people to hell.
No, I haven't put any thought into who would decide because I know it would never happen here.
David, I was studying the "don't commit adultery" commandment this morning and looking at the parallel passages which mandate the death penalty for adultery. What I find interesting is the reason for the seemingly harsh penalty. That the elimination of evil from the nation of Israel is what is most important. That the elimination of evil is important enough to warrant the death penalty.
Further, that the elimination of those who harm children is so important that sacrificing one of the means of feeding the community (a millstone) is justified speaks to the importance of removing evil from the community.
As far as heresy, I understand your point, yet realize how problematic it would be in practice. I agree with your underlying principle that some things are so valuable that they are worth taking lives to protect.
I take comfort in YHWH's reassurance that His word will survive, and u;ultimately prevail and that He will secure that final victory. Although, I am sympathetic to your position.
One last thought about "If recognizing false teachers was so easy". Back when I was actually looking into this, I was surprised at how thin the line between Truth and heresy actually was. I'd hear things that sounded fine, until I took a second look. These folx are very good at making slight changes which have huge impact. Which probably accounts for the warnings.
I'd also argue that the prevalence of the internet has given lots of people more of an audience than they would otherwise have had and allowed them to spread heresy much further than was possible a few decades ago.
I didn’t say that recognizing false teachers was “easy” but that it is accomplished through conscientious Bible study (under the direction of the Holy Spirit, who bestows the gifts of discernment and teaching to members of the Church). Warnings about the presence of false teachers are so prevalent in the New Testament because of its grave urgency and rampant occurrence right from the start. The New Testament model for addressing false teachers was one of strong, vocal, and decisive opposition, but execution was never promoted in the early church (but was later practiced where and when “Church” and “State” powers were more intertwined). Yes, there are “church buildings” full of false teachers and their followers (including bonafide cultic and quasi-Christian organizations), but they are not the true Church, which we know is a very small subset of Christendom--i.e. the elect.
(I will say that I found your final statement of your first paragraph a bit confusing. Unbelievers are already headed for hell by default, and God will bring all of the elect to true faith--despite previous encounters with false teachers. Therefore, such extreme action as you envision strikes me as ill-advised, as well as extremely problematic [for reasons not covered here].)
I too abhor false teaching and bristle at the sight and sound of false teachers (probably even moreso than you), so I understand your general sentiment. In our zeal and commitment to “contend for the faith” among the saints (Jude 1:3), we are to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) as we uphold biblical theology. I have quoted 2 Tim. 2:24-26 many times before, but it really guides me in this area, so I’ll repeat it:
And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.”
There is so much instruction packed into that passage that I am convicted by a new emphasis every time I read it--but I am not led to adopt a “kill the heretic!” spirit at all.
After talking it over and thinking about it, perhaps my initial reaction to repeated heretical teachers was a bit strong. I can still understand God's command to the Israelites. And if I were king of my own country, I'd resort to exile.
I think that the basis for your position is still valid. There are some things that are so important and valuable that extreme measures might be necessary to deal with them. Yet, I also agree that exile or disfellowshipping is probably a better solution at this point.
I agree that my gut response was on the extreme end. That would be where excommunication or exile would come in.
I noticed that comments at this post were addressing different things: (1) from the Old Testament: God’s instructions to theocratic Israel, (2) from the New Testament: false teachers/prophets in the Church (many of whose heresies were decisively addressed at various early Church councils), and (3) from church/world history: the much-later practice of “burning heretics” or executing “enemies of the Church”--which was most commonly the torture/execution of dissenters of the Roman Catholic Church during the centuries when it yielded supreme political power and authority. There is also this: (4) from the U.S. Constitution: a citizen’s right to freedom of conscience regarding religious thought and practice.
David, I could not see where your proposed response to present-day false religious teachers--which I believe would fall under (2) and (4) above--fit in (keeping in mind that NT “church discipline” did not entail physical bodily harm). Perhaps you see a fifth category here where I do not.
Lorna, I hope you can see David shifted his view from "physical bodily harm" to "excommunication" ... kind of like the biblical view in Matthew 18. I was interested to watch his process ... the kind I hope all of us do when we consider our own ideas and maybe realign them to God's Word.
Yes, I noted that and was encouraged. Perhaps a future post of yours will present a better opportunity to discuss how the concepts of “excommunication” and “exile” might function in the present-day Church. (Also, a better understanding of “heretic” would be helpful in that discussion.) Until then, here’s to realignment with God’s Word!
"Excommunication" is biblical (Matt 18:15-17). I don't understand why there would be a question of how that is done in the church ... except, perhaps, because most churches aren't willing to do it ... in direct opposition to the command.
One of the problems of so many churches and so many denominations, there's no real way to enforce excommunication anymore. Not even the Catholic Church can successfully enforce denial of the Sacraments. All we can really enforce is our individual churches, and very few of them do any sort of checking on new attendees. Maybe if you're applying for membership in a church that does that they'll ask, otherwise, there's no accountability.
I think you're talking about two different things here, David. Ensuring a membership of true believers is not the same as excommunication. And I'm not sure what anyone would expect in making sure that a person is a believer. Jesus describes "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and John talks about how they're "among us but not of us." I know people and can't say for sure if they're saved or not. I can't imagine a "church committee" designed to monitor applicants for "Christianity." Excommunication, on the other hand, is straightforward ... "on the word of two or three witnesses." It's not for exclusion, but for correction.
If you have a pastor that starts teaching anti-biblical teachings, and the church comes together and excommunicates him, there is nothing stopping him from simply moving on to another church to teach heresy. I think the breakdown we're looking at between then and now is the level of biblical literacy and church size. During the Apostolic Age, how many churches had elders over hundreds of people? It was much easier to maintain accountability and random new people or visitors that weren't invited from someone else were rare. The point of excommunication was correction because the person would feel the loss of fellowship and access to the means of grace. That simply is no longer the case. You excommunicate someone now and they simply move on to the next church without any need for reflection or repentance. This isn't an argument to not do it, but I'm not sure the point anymore is repentance but to keep the local flock pure, which was the point of stoning the idolators. The options for another church are too broad and too watered down for it to lead very many people to repentance. Repentance should be a goal of excommunication, but I think the higher priority is purity of the flock.
See, Stan? I think you need a separate post written just to address this issue. It's complicated!
For clarification of my comments, Stan, I will say that I prefer to focus on “disfellowshipping” (or removing from fellowship), rather than “excommunication.” (I do see references in the NT regarding disfellowshipping, while “excommunication” more properly describes a practice that developed many centuries later.) In the NT, I find instruction to both the individual and the local assemblies for dealing with church members committing blatant and unrepentant sin (Matt. 18:15-17, 1 Cor. 5:11-13), as well as those causing division and promoting false doctrines (Rom. 16:17-18, Tit. 3:9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15)--situations possibly warranting disfellowshipping (and/or, these days, revoking the official membership in a particular local church).
From David’s first comment above on, my focus was on responding to unrepentant false teachers/prophets in the present-day Church--being mindful that those bordering on “heresy” are not likely to be true believers or individuals who would comply with “church discipline” efforts (if they even associate with a Bible-based church). As I see it, neither “excommunication” (however that is presently understood) nor exile (and certainly not execution!) effectively stops defiant false teachers. However, I personally can banish them from my influence and give them no credence. Indeed, I am instructed to expose their “unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph. 5:11), seek no fellowship with them (2 Cor. 6:14), and “mark and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17-18, 2 Thess. 3:14). (This is where the good teaching and personal Bible study I first mentioned comes in--enabling me to recognize those promoting false teaching and avoid them like the plague.)
Lorna, the dictionary says excommunication is a "religious censure that deprives or limits membership or rights in a religious community." I suspect it's not as complicated as some might think. I SUSPECT the confusion comes when filtered through a Catholic perception which affects one's salvation. The dictionary definition doesn't require that.
David, most businesses and most churches "screen" applicants. You know ... background checks, references, etc. A pastor who was fired for preaching heresy should noted at his next "application" as "preaching heresy" and rejected. If not, the church who hires him doesn't care about heresy or the fired pastor wasn't honest. And the truth is VERY few churches today are willing to fire a pastor for preaching heresy or to remove a member for willful sin (like Jesus talked about). And false teachers were present at the beginning (considering JESUS warned about it and so did most of the New Testament). We will always have them and there's this terrifying idea that we might have to trust God to manage the problem because too few of us will do it.
I do know the dictionary definition of “excommunication” (and also the origin of the term), but I am looking at the NT Church model (my interpretative filter in this case), where no actual use of “excommunication” occurs and where “disfellowshipping” better captures the concept and advised practice (as per the various Bible verses I cited). I don’t believe I myself hold any “confusion” while indeed considering the practice to be complicated (I have thought of other issues beyond those David already mentioned).
I haven't done any research into it, but it's it possible that "excommunication" is the Latin form of "disfellowship"?
I think that many do think of the term that way and understand its meaning along the lines of Stan’s dictionary definition. I did a bit of research online (almost as much as if Stan had written a post titled, “Let’s Talk About Excommunication” ;). I read that “the term entered English in the mid-15th century from Latin, replacing older Old English words like āmǣnsumian.” This is from GotQuestions.org:
“Q: What Is Excommunication in the Bible? A: First, we should note that the Bible never uses the word excommunication. It’s a word that has been adopted by some religious groups, especially by the Catholic Church, to denote the formal process of removing someone from membership and participation in the church, from relationship with the church community, or, in the Catholic view, even from the family of God.” [It goes on to describe church discipline as described in the NT.]
“Q: What is disfellowshipping? A: Disfellowshipping is a term that refers to putting one out of the fellowship, or common group, due to some sin, moral lapse, or unfaithfulness…. To be disfellowshipped is to be removed from membership…. [T]he basic concept of disfellowshipping is found in the New Testament. In Matthew 18 Jesus teaches that, if a person who claims to be a believer will not repent of specific sin after several confrontations, that person should be treated as an unbeliever.”
So, it seems reasonable to use the terms interchangeably, but I hope that people are at least aware of its stricter meaning and practice (think “anathema”) within some church denominations, where it can be seen to go beyond the NT guidelines and purposes for church discipline, as I see it.
Post a Comment