Baptist Catechism 100

Q. 100. How is baptism rightly administered?

A. Baptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the party in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to Christ’s institution, and the practice of the apostles, and not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of man. (Matt. 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38,39)

Scripture Reading: Acts 8:26-40

“Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, ‘Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.’ This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over and join this chariot.’ So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: ‘Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.’ And the eunuch said to Philip, ‘About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’ Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.” (Acts 8:26–40, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.

*****

The question before us today is, “How is baptism rightly administered?“ In other words, how is a baptism properly done?

You know, in some traditions, baptisms are administered by the pouring or sprinkling of water. And the question is, is this proper?

Our catechism is quite direct, isn’t it?  At the end, it says, “not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of man.” In our opinion, this practice of sprinkling, pouring, or dipping some part of the body into the baptismal water is not from Christ, but is the tradition of man. 

Where did this tradition come from?  Well, I have not studied that question in detail, but I wonder if it did not develop along with the tradition of applying the sign of baptism to infants and to those on their deathbeds. Sprinkling, pouring, or dipping only a part of the body in water in situations like these would certainly be more convenient. 

However the tradition developed, we are saying that it is not from Scripture, which means that it is not from God. It is the tradition of man, and it is to be rejected. 

Notice again that the question is “How is baptism rightly administered?“ In other words, what is the correct way to do it? 

As is usually the case, it is helpful to compare our catechism with our confession to gain a fuller understanding of the doctrine being presented. Our confession teaches in chapters 28 and 29 that those who have faith in Christ are the only proper subjects of baptism; never should those who do not profess faith be baptized, and this includes infants. Infant baptisms are invalid baptisms, therefore. Water is always to be used. And those baptized are to be baptized in the name of the Triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—by one who is qualified and called to administer the sacrament, according to the commission of Christ (2LCF 28.2). A baptism that lacks these things should be considered invalid. But our confession says in 29.4 that “Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.” In other words, the right way to baptize is by immersion, or the dipping of the person in water. But what about those who have been baptized as believers, with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by one who is qualified and called to administer the sacrament, but by sprinkling, pouring, or dipping a part of the body into the water? What should we think of a baptism like this? Is it valid?

This is a question that comes up from time to time even today, but it was a very common question for the Particular Baptists living in the 17th century. They had to wrestle with the question, Should we receive the baptisms of those who were baptized as believers, but by sprinkling. Many thought yes. Though their baptisms were improperly done, they were to be considered valid.  And that is why 29.4 of our confession says that “Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.” Due means proper.

Would we consider an infant baptism valid? No, never. For that one was not baptized upon profession of faith. The one who was baptized as an infant was not really baptized. They should be baptized properly as a believer now, and thus say to God and to the world, Jesus is Lord. 

Would we consider a Roman Catholic, Mormon, or a Jehovah’s Witness baptism to be valid? No, never. For those are different religions with different conceptions of sin and salvation. In the case of Mormon and JW doctrine, their view of God and Christ is fundamentally different, too. Those who were baptized in these religions were not baptized into Christ’s church, but into something else. 

Would we consider the baptism of one who was sprinkled with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon profession of faith, let’s say,  in a Reformed or Presbyterian church, to be valid? Yes, I think we would. Our view would be that it was improperly done, but may be regarded as valid. 

So why do we say that “[b]aptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the party in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” Why is this the right way to do it?

The answer is rather straight forwrad. One, this is what the word “baptism” means – to immerse or submerge. Two, this is what Christ taught. And three, this is what the Apostles did. In other words, baptism by immersion is what we find in scripture. 

Read the New Testament and see. Baptisms were performed in bodies of water —  rivers, lakes, and such. People “went down into the water” to be baptized, and they were brought up again. 

The passage that I read from Acts 8 regarding Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch is a good example. Philip preached the gospel to him from Isaiah the prophet. The Ethiopian believed. And after believing he said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ He commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.”  

If ever there was a time for baptism by sprinkling or pouring, it was here, for they were in an arid region. But baptism was made possible by the body of water. It was large enough for them to go down into it and to come up out of it again. Read the New Testament and see that this is always the case. It is always baptism by immersion that is described. 

Add to this the symbolism of baptism. Baptism signifies cleansing. It signifies our union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Through immersion, the whole body is washed. Through immersion, our death in Christ, and our resurrection in Christ are signified as we go under the water and come up again. Baptism by pouring or sprinkling doesn’t quite capture this, does it?

*****

Conclusion

And this is why we say, “Baptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the party in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to Christ’s institution, and the practice of the apostles, and not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of man. (Matt. 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38,39)

This sermon I am about to preach is not like the sermons I typically preach. 

For one, it is not an expositional sermon, but a topical sermon through and through. It is about church discipline, the variety of situations that the church will encounter that require discipline, and the variety of measures or tools that are at our disposal. 

Two, this sermon is a little longer than usual. There is a risk in admitting that it is a bit longer in these introductory remarks, for this might lead some to tune out from the beginning. I hope it has the opposite effect. Please tune in, brothers and sisters.  

I’ve decided to preach on this topic and to devote a little more time to its development because I think it is important. We, as a congregation, have several church discipline cases to address. Each of them is different. If we lack clarity of mind concerning these cases and what the Scriptures require us to do in response to them, it could lead to confusion and even division within the congregation. It is to guard against confusion and possible division that I have decided to preach this topical sermon today. I pray the church will be edified by this teaching.   

*****

Scripture Reading: Galatians 6:1–2

“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:1–2, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church, but without the benefit of proofreading.

Sermon

What is church discipline?

Generally speaking, church discipline is one part of the discipleship process. Christ has commissioned his church, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV). Baptized disciples of Jesus Christ are to join local churches, wherein they will be taught to observe all that Christ has commanded. Ordinarily, this teaching comes in the form of the public preaching of the Scriptures and private instruction from the Word of God, but church discipline also plays a role. Through discipline, sinning church members are corrected and exhorted to walk in obedience to the commands of Christ. 

After all, the same Jesus who commissioned his Apostles to go and make disciples, to baptize, and to teach these to observe all that he commanded, also said, 

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:15–20, ESV)

This passage is about church discipline. Christ is clear that his churches are to be disciplined societies. The doors of church membership are to be opened only to those who make a credible profession of faith. And those who destroy the credibility of their profession by persisting in sin are to be put out of the church. This is called excommunication. 

But there is much more to church discipline than excommunication. As I have said, Church discipline is a crucial part of Christian discipleship. It is one of the means that the church must use as she endeavors to obey the Great Commission by teaching baptized disciples of Jesus to obey all that Christ has commanded. 

As you may know, church discipline is rarely practiced in many churches today. Even churches that endeavor to preach and teach the Word of God will often neglect discipline, and it is to their great detriment. 

Churches that preach the Word but do not practice discipline may be compared to parents who instruct their children verbally but fail to follow through with discipline when the children are willfully defiant. Mom, Dad, how many times are you going to tell your child not to speak disrespectfully to you before you discipline your child for their defiance? It is true, instruction is needed. Little children must be taught to honor father and mother. They must be taught the difference between right and wrong. But once the child knows that a particular behavior is wrong and forbidden, they must be consistently disciplined (in a loving and self-controlled way) when they defy the instructions of their parents. Instruction is needed, and so too is discipline. And so it is in Christ’s churches. 

What is the aim or goal of church discipline? Here is what our constitution says: “Church discipline aims for the glory of God, the welfare and purity of the church, and the restoration and spiritual growth of the offender” (Emmaus Constitution, Article V. Section 1). This is true. 

To be clear, there is a kind of discipline that should always be taking place within the church behind the scenes. This has been called formative church discipline. Our constitution says this about formative church discipline: “Formative church discipline is the church engaged in edifying and disciplining itself in love. It is the responsibility of each member to endeavor to maintain this Christian duty of mutual edification for one another (Romans 12:3-8; I Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:7-16; I Thessalonians 5:11-14; I Peter 4:10,11). This is done by the use of and submission to the gifts of those both old and young, office bearer and member, which Christ graciously gives to his church” (Emmaus Constitution, Article V, Section 3). Galatians 6:1-2, which we read a moment ago, describes formative church discipline, as does 1 Thessalonians 5:11-14: “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all” (1 Thessalonians 5:11–14, ESV).

Formative church discipline must always be taking place amongst the membership of the church, but sometimes formal or corrective church discipline is required. And there are a variety of situations that will require formal church discipline. Our constitution says, “​​In cases of actual or presumed private offense between members, including church officers, it is required that the rule prescribed by Christ in Matthew 18:15-17 be faithfully observed. In cases of persons holding false doctrine, or who openly persist in ungodliness (I John 2:15-17; Romans 12:1,2; II Corinthians 6:14-7:1), or who live in violation of the law or public morals, or who walk disorderly, or who persist in disturbing the unity and peace of this church, it is the duty of the church to exercise discipline according to the scriptures (II Thessalonians 3:6,11,14,15; Titus 3:10,11; I Corinthians 5:1; Romans 16:17).” 

The important thing to notice here is that the Scriptures describe a variety of situations wherein formal church discipline will be required. Sometimes, church members will sin against other members and refuse to repent (Matthew 18:15-17). Sometimes, church members commit heinous sins that immediately call into question the credibility of their profession of faith, especially if there is no repentance displayed (1 Corinthians 5). Sometimes church members are found holding to or promoting false doctrines that undermine the very foundation of the faith (Galatians 1:8-9). Sometimes, church members stir up division in the body of Christ (Titus 3:10-11). And sometimes, brothers and sisters in Christ behave in an immature and disorderly way (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). Each of these situations will require the church to take certain measures. In each, we must follow the “rule prescribed by Christ” as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. In every case, the aim or goal of church discipline remains the same. Hear it again,  “Church discipline aims for the glory of God, the welfare and purity of the church, and the restoration and spiritual growth of the offender” (Emmaus Constitution, Article V. Section 1). 

All that I have said so far should be regarded as introductory. I’m confident that the members of this church are familiar with most of what I have just said. I’ve decided to take up the topic of church discipline today, to be sure we as a church have clarity and unity of mind concerning two things: 

One, I hope it is clear that not every church discipline case is the same. As has been said, there are a variety of situations that will require formal church discipline. The church (with the elders in the lead) must endeavor to carefully follow the Scriptures in each case with wisdom and care. 

Two, I think it is important for us to be aware of the variety of tools or measures made available to us by Christ as revealed in his Word when conducting discipline. I’m afraid that some assume that Matthew 18 is the only church discipline text—it is not. And I’m afraid that some only think of full or direct excommunication when they think of the mechanisms available to the church. We have more options, brothers and sisters, and we must know what they are.

You must know that when conducting formal church discipline, the church (with the elders in the lead) may censure, suspend, withdraw from, excommunicate, or exclude a sinning member. 

Censure

What is censure? 

Sometimes the term is used generically to describe someone who is under formal church discipline – this person is under censure, we may say. More precisely, the term censure, or public censure, refers to “a public admonition, reproof or rebuke of a sinning member.” Public censure is to be administered by the elders of the church. And its purpose is to inform the congregation that the erring member is living contrary to the scriptures in word and/or deed,” and to call them to repentance  (see The Emmaus Constitution, Article V, Section 4). 

That Christ has given elders the authority to rebuke is made clear in the letters that Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus.  

Paul wrote to Timothy, saying, “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Timothy 5:20, ESV). In another place, he commanded Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2, ESV).

Paul wrote to Titus, saying, “This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith…” (Titus 1:13, ESV). Later in the same letter, he commanded Titus to  “Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15, ESV). And when Paul listed the qualifications for the office of elder, he said, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9, ESV).

This last verse raises a very important point. The authority that a pastor or elder has to rebuke the members of the congregation is a ministerial authority. By this, we mean that elders may rebuke as a minister or servant of Christ and the people. A minister is not permitted to rebuke arbitrarily based upon his own ideas or opinions. He is to rebuke as a minister or bondservant of Christ. He is to rebuke from the Word of God when members contradict sound doctrine. Hear the verse again: An elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9, ESV).  

Public censure is an important and powerful tool that Christ has given to the church to be used in discipline under certain circumstances. 

Suspension

We’ve considered censure. What is suspension?

According to Benjamin Keach, a 17th century Particular Baptist, and one signatories of our confession of faith, “Suspension is to be [used] when a member falls under sin, and the church wants time fully to hear the matter, and so can’t withdraw from him, or cast him out” (Keach, Glory Of A True Church, 37).

Although the term “suspension” is not used, our constitution describes suspension in Article V, Section 4, under the heading of Public Censure. After providing the definition of censure (which we have just considered), our constitution goes on to say, “This may result in the loss of the privilege of the Lord’s Supper, involvement in church business meetings, and other sanctions as judged appropriate by the congregation and/or elders. Upon evidence of genuine repentance, the member shall be publicly restored to full privileges of membership (Ephesians 4:28).” Again, though the term is not used, this section of our constitution describes suspension.

Please notice that our constitution gives authority to the members and/or elders to suspend from the Lord’s Table, etc. I will say, this is one of those places in our constitution that I am not completely comfortable with, and I think my co-elders agree. While I agree that elders have the authority to rebuke or censure (1 Timothy 5:20), I do not believe the elders should have the authority to unilaterally suspend from the Lord’s Table, etc., at least not for a prolonged time, without the consent of the congregation. If the elders do have the authority to suspend members from the Lord’s Table and involvement in church business meetings, I believe it should only be under certain circumstances and for a very limited amount of time. The members should be asked to consent to the suspension speedily. I trust you can see why I’m uncomfortable with elders possessing this authority in an unchecked way. It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which an authoritarian pastor or eldership might abuse it. Perhaps the elders will propose amendments to our constitution on this point in the future. Until then, your elders are committed to not abuse this provision. 

That said, I do believe it is wise for the church to have the ability to suspend members from the Lord’s Table and from church business meetings, etc. At times, the church may be faced with very perplexing situations. On the one hand, it may be clear that a member has sinned grievously and should not come to the Table or participate in church life as usual. On the other hand, it may not be so clear as to how the church should proceed. Should the person be excommunicated? Should they be withdrawn from? Are the charges true? If so, are they truly repentant? 

If you were to ask me for a scriptural proof text for suspension, I’ll admit that I cannot give you one. I believe this is a light of nature or wisdom issue (Second London Confession 1.6). And because this is a principle drawn from the light of nature, it is all the more reason to limit whatever power is given to elders to use it.   

Withdrawal

We have considered two tools available to us in discipline: censure and suspension. Now we ask, what does it mean to withdraw from a member?

The key scripture text is 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. I’ll read from the KNJV, given that it uses the English word “withdraw” to translate the Greek, instead of the phrase “keep away”, as the ESV does. Either translation is fine, but I want you to see where the term “withdraw” is coming from.

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition [instruction] which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, NKJV)

This passage is very interesting. It seems to speak of a church discipline option that is often overlooked. Notice a few things about this text:

First, notice the nature of the sin under consideration, namely, disorderliness. In the context, some in the church of Thessalonica were refusing to work to provide for themselves and those under their care. Paul categorized this sin as disorderliness. “For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies” (2 Thessalonians 3:11, NKJV).

Secondly, notice that Paul considered this sin to be serious and worthy of a serious response from the church. He wrote to the church, saying, in verse 6, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6, NKJV). In verse 10 he says, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10, NKJV). And finally, in verse 14, he says, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thessalonians 3:14, NKJV). That Paul viewed the disorderliness as a serious problem is made clear by the measures he commanded the church to take. Those who persisted in this way of life were to be noted, and they were to be withdrawn from. The church was not to associate or keep company with them. And what was the goal or aim? The text says, ​“that he may be ashamed.” The conviction of sin and repentance within the disorderly person was the aim. 

Thirdly, notice that though this withdrawal from a disorderly brother is a kind of excommunication, it comes short of full excommunication in that the person is not to be regarded as a non-believer (Matthew 18:17) or handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Corinthians 5:5). 2 Thessalonians 3:15 says, “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother”. In just a moment, we will answer the question, What is excommunication? In brief, those excommunicated are to be put out of the church, regarded as tax collectors and Gentile sinners, and handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. But here, Paul says, “Yet do not count [the disorderly brother or sister whom you are to withdraw from] as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, NKJV).

I will admit that in the reading I have done on this subject, I have found different interpretations of the words, “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, NKJV). Some, like Jonathan Edwards, whom I will quote later, seem to take this to mean that the church is to apply this principle to all who are excommunicated. Even after full excommunication, we are not “to count [them] as an enemy, but admonish [them] as brothers.” I don’t agree with this interpretation (if I have understood Edwards correctly). 

It is my opinion that Paul is here presenting us with a form of excommunication (if I may call it that) that comes short of full excommunication—which involves viewing the person as a tax collector, a Gentile sinner, and an enemy of the cross of Christ—and demands that we still view and admonish the person as a brother or sister in Christ. After a person is excommunicated (fully), we are not to say, brother, repent. Rather, we are simply to say, repent and turn to Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins. But these disorderly Christians whom Paul commanded the church to withdraw from were still to be admonished as brothers.  

What’s the difference, you ask? Why wouldn’t Paul command that these unrepentant sinners be fully excommunicated from the church, regarded as non-believers, and handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh? It must be this: the nature of their sin was such that they had not destroyed the credibility of their profession of faith, at least not yet. These were to be admonished and, if not repentant, withdrawn from. This must mean that they were to be barred from the Lord’s Table and fellowship with the church. But they were not to be cast off entirely. They were not to be counted as enemies but rather warned as brothers. 

I’m aware that not all will agree with my interpretation, but some will. Benjamin Keach seems to interpret 2 Thessalonians 3 in this way (see also the way that William Kiffin applies 2 Thessalonians 3 in, A Sober Discourse Of Right To Church Communion).

Listen to Keach. This comes from chapter 7 of his book, The Glory Of A True Church. “If any member walks disorderly, though not guilty of gross scandalous sins, he or she, as soon as it is taken notice of, ought to be admonished, and endeavors to be used to bring him to repentance” He then cites our passage, “For we hear that there are some which walk disorderly, not working at all, but are busy-bodies” (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12). And then, after clarifying that he does not take this to mean that these Christains were guilty of the egregious sins of gossip and slander, and after telling us that they must be admonished, he says, 

“But if after all due endeavors used, he is not reclaimed, but continues a disorderly person, the church must withdraw from him. Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions he received from us [2 Thessalonians 3:6]. This is not a delivering up to Satan, excommunicating or dismembering the person; for this sort are still to be owned as members, though disorderly ones: the church must note him so as not to have communion or company with him in that sense; yet count him not as an enemy, but exhort him as a brother: if any man obey not our word, note that man [2 Thessalonians 3:14-15]. It appears that such who refuse to adhere to what the pastor commands and exhorts to [Hebrews 12:25], in the name of Christ, are to be deemed disorderly persons, as such are who meet not with the church when assembled together to worship God, or that neglect private or family prayer, or neglect their attendance on the Lord’s Supper, or to contribute to the necessary charges of the church, or suffer an evil unreproved in their children; all such may be looked upon disorderly walkers, and ought to be proceeded against according to this rule….” (Keach, The Glory Of A True Church, 37-39).

Though the term is not used, our constitution leaves room for the possibility of withdrawal in Article V, Section 4 under the heading, Public Censure, in the words, “This may result in the loss of the privilege of the Lord’s Supper, involvement in church business meetings and other sanctions as judged appropriate by the congregation and/or elders.” I will reiterate the concerns I stated earlier. I do not believe the elders should have the authority to unilaterally suspend or withdraw from a member. We need to fix our constitutions at this point. Another concern is that our constitution needs to be more precise and clear concerning these categories of discipline. Lord willing, the elders will propose amendments in the not-too-distant future  

The point is this: in cases wherein a church member is walking in a disorderly way and remains unrepentant after being admonished, it is appropriate for the church to note that brother or sister and withdraw from them. The unrepentant disorderly walker is not to be associated with. This means they are to be barred from the Lord’s Table and from Christian fellowship until repentance is expressed. But these disorderly persons are not to be regarded as enemies, but warned as brothers or sisters in Christ. This is because of the nature of their sin. Though they are living in a disorderly, sinful, and foolish manner, they have not yet undermined the credibility of their profession in the eyes of the church. 

Not only do I believe this is the meaning of this text, but I have also encountered situations where I think this approach would be most appropriate. Believers sometimes walk in a disorderly way. They need to be called to repentance and disciplined, but they are to be admonished as brothers and sisters in Christ. 

Excommunication

We have considered censure, suspension, and withdrawal. We come now to excommunication. What is excommunication?

It is the casting out of a member of the church, such that they are no longer considered a brother or sister in Christ. They are to be regarded “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17, ESV). In excommunication, they are to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of their sinful flesh (1 Corinthians 5:5). The hope remains that they will repent so that their “spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 5:5, ESV).

Who is to be excommunicated? In brief, it is those who destroy the credibility of their profession of faith by holding to erroneous doctrines that evert (undermine) the foundation of the faith, or by unholy living (see Second London Confession 26.2).  

The symmetry should be obvious to all. Who is to be received into the church through baptism and admitted to the Lord’s Table? Those who make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ? And who is to be removed from the membership of the church and barred from the Lord’s Table? Those who go on to destroy the credibility of the profession of faith they once made.

Our constitution speaks of excommunication in Article V, Section V. “If public censure and the above-mentioned aspects of corrective discipline fail, the congregation shall have a right to excommunicate from membership such persons by an affirmative vote of the majority of the members present and voting (Matthew 18:17; I Corinthians 5:1-13).” 

Matthew 18:15-20 tells us that those who persist in private sin are to be excommunicated. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 teaches us to move speedily towards excommunication when the sin is heinous, public, and there is no repentance. Galatians 1:8-9 requires that heretics be cast out of the church— “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8–9, ESV). Titus 3:10 teaches that those who stir up division within the church are to be excommunicated — “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10–11, ESV).

Only the local church has the power to excommunicate. When the elders recommend and the church consents to excommunicate a member, a minister is to pronounce a judgment like this: 

“That [so and so] being guilty of great iniquity, and not manifesting unfeigned repentance, but refusing to hear the church, I do in the name, and by the authority of Christ committed unto me as pastor of this this church, pronounce and declare that he is to be, and is hereby excommunicated, excluded, or cast out of the congregation, and no longer to be owned a brother, or a member of this church; and this for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (Keach, The Glory Of A True Church, 42-43)

[[I hope it is clear to you what excommunication is. I would like to briefly address a couple of common questions regarding excommunication.  

In 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, Pauls says, “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Corinthians 5:9–11, ESV). My question is this: What does Paul mean when he says, “not even to eat with such a one”? Clearly, this must mean that we are not to eat the Lord’s Supper with the person. But does Paul mean more than this?

Listen to what Jonathan Edwards says: 

“Particularly, we are forbidden such a degree of associating ourselves with them, as there is in making them our guests at our tables, or in being their guests at their tables; as is manifest in the text, where we are commanded to have no company with them, no not to eat. That this respects not eating with them at the Lord’s supper, but a common eating, is evident by the words, that the eating here forbidden, is one of the lowest degrees of keeping company, which are forbidden. Keep no company with such an one, saith the apostle, no not to eat: as much as to say, no not in so low a degree as to eat with him. But eating with him at the Lord’s supper, is the very highest degree of visible Christian communion. Who can suppose that the apostle meant this, Take heed and have no company with a man, no not so much as in the highest degree of communion that you can have? Besides, the apostle mentions this eating as a way of keeping company which, however, they might hold with the heathen. He tells them, not to keep company with fornicators; then he informs them, he means not with fornicators of this world, that is, the heathens; but, saith he, ‘if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. with such an one keep no company, no not to eat.’ This makes it most apparent, that the apostle doth not mean eating at the Lord’s table; for so, they might not keep company with the heathens, any more than with an excommunicated person.” (Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 119).

The meaning is this: Christians should not continue to have fellowship or keep company with those who have been excommunicated for persisting in sin.  That these excommunicated persons should not be permitted to come to the Lord’s Table or to join the church in her fellowship meals is obvious. More than this, Christians must not continue to have Christian fellowship our friendship with excommunicated persons as if nothing had changed. 

A little later, Edwards raises another common question. “What kindness and respect may and ought to be shown to such persons?”  He answers: 

“There are some things by which the members of the church are obliged to show kindness to them; and these things are chiefly, to pray for them, and to admonish them.—And the common dutes and offices of humanity ought to be performed towards them; such as relieving them when they are sick, or under any other distress; allowing them those benefits of human society, and that help, which are needful for the support and defence of their lives and property.—The dutes of natural and civil relations are still to be performed towards them. Excommunication doth not release children from the obligation of duty to their parents, nor parents from parental affection and care toward their children. Nor are husbands and wives released from the duties proper to their relation. And so of all other less relations, whether natural, domestic, or civil.” (Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 119-120)

This is very helpful. Excommunicated persons are not to be completely shunned or treated harshly, much less, unjustly. Christians may show kindness and compassion to excommunicated persons. But it cannot be that things go on as usual. When the person was a member of the church, they enjoyed sweet fellowship with you, and you with them. You called them brother or sister, and so they addressed you in return. But when a person is excommunicated, all of that changes. Though you may eat with the non-believer who never professed faith in Christ, Paul says that we are not to enjoy table fellowship with the one who has been excommunicated. You say, but it is my husband who was excommunicated. Be a good wife to him. Cook for him and eat with him as his wife. You say, but it was my father or mother who was excommunicated. Be a good daughter or son. Love them, honor them, and eat with them as a son or daughter should.  Paul’s point is that excommunication brings about a great change in church relations, and that change must be appropriately expressed in all our relations with an excommunicated person.]]

Exclussion

We have answered the question, what is excommunication? And now we ask, what is exclusion?

Our constitution speaks of exclusion in Article IV,, Section 13 under the heading, Termination of Membership: Exclusion: “If a member in good standing relocates to another church without resigning their membership or requesting a letter of transfer, or if a member is habitually absent from the fellowship of this church without just cause for more than six weeks, they may be excluded from the membership of the church at the discretion of the elders.” 

Again, I’m concerned that our constitution gives too much power to the eldership here. The exclusion of members ought to have the consent of the congregation. Also, our constitution is not clear concerning what exclusion is.  

Historically, exclusion has been called a mixed-excommunication. It is called mixed-excommunication, because it originally proceeds from, and consists in, the act of the brother himself, and is the formality of his offence; upon which proceeds the just and inviolable [absolute and unalterable] act of the church. 

It’s a simple concept. Sometimes people walk away from the church. There is no need to put them out because they have sinfully departed on their own accord. Nevertheless, the church must act to bring clarity to the situation. We do not call this excommunication, for excommunication is the church putting out a member. We call this exclusion because it is an acknowledgement that someone has put themselves out of the church, and a declaration that they will be kept out (excluded), unless there is repentance.

I was talking with my wife about this the other day. We were standing in the kitchen next to the door. I opened the door and said, sometimes the church needs to open the door of church membership, usher someone out, and then close the door behind them. That’s excommunication. But at other times, members take it upon themselves to open the door of church membership and walk out on their own accord. The church then needs to acknowledge that this has been done and shut the door behind them. That’s exclusion.

When someone walks away from the church and departs for the world, the situation is rather clear-cut. They are to be excluded. But what should be done in a situation where a Christian unduly separates themself from one church and joins another church in a disorderly way?

Listen to what Benjamin Keach says:

“This I find is generally asserted by all Congregational divines, or worthy men, i.e. that no person hath power to dismember himself: i.e. he cannot, without great sin, translate himself from one church to another; but ought to have a dismission from that church where he is a member: provided that church is orderly constituted, nothing being wanting as to any essential of salvation; or of church communion: But if not, yet he ought to endeavor to get his orderly dismission.

Nor is every small difference in some points of religion (or notions of little moment) any grounds for him to desire his dismission.

That he cannot, nor ought not to translate himself, see what a reverend writer saith [Keach then quotes Isaac Chauncy, The Doctrine Which is According To Godliness, 337]:

He cannot, saith he, for many reasons [Chauncy lists 16 reasons. I’ll highlight a few]:

‘1. It is not decent, much less an orderly going away; but very unmannerly, and a kind of running away:

2. Such a departure is not approved of in families, or civil societies [Philippians 1:27; Titus 2:10].

3. It destroys the relation of pastor and people: For what may be done by one individual person, may be done by all.

4. What liberty in this kind belongs to the sheep, belongs to the shepherd; much more he may then also leave his flock at his pleasure, without giving notice or reason thereof to the church.

5. It is breaking covenant with Christ, and with the congregation, and therefore a great immorality; he being under obligation to abide steadfastly with the church; i.e. till the church judge he hath a lawful call to go to another Congregation.

6. It’s a schism.

7. It is a despising of the government of the church.

8. It is a particular member’s assuming to himself the use of the Keys; or rather stealing of them.

…

13. It is like a leak in a ship, which, if not speedily stopped, will sink at last.

14. It tends to anarchy, putting an arbitrary power in every member.

15. It breaks all bonds of love, and raiseth the greatest animosities between brethren and churches.’

…

Keach then asks, “What is the just act of the church, that clothes this irregular separation with the formality, as it were, of an excommunication? A. He answers: (Calling) this a mixt-excommunication…”, that is to say, exclusion. 

Keach then recommends that this judgment of exclusion be pronounced by an elder of the church:

“That A.B. having so and so irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation, we do now adjudge him a non-member, and one that is not to communicate with the church, in the special ordinances of communion, till due satisfaction is given by him. [Mixed excommunication. Romans 9:17-18; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; Jude 12]” 

Interestingly, Keach cites 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15 – the text that he used earlier to teach us about withdrawal – as a proof text to justify the removal of someone from the membership who has “irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation” (and attempts to join another church). Do not forget – when the church withdraws from a member, they remain a member. The hope is that they will repent of their disorderly ways and be restored to the full privileges of church membership in the church where they remain a member. But here, Keach cites 2 Thessalonians 3 as a proof text for removing someone from the membership of the church who has “irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation” and has departed, not for the world, but to another congregation. This is the issue that Keach is addressing in this chapter of his book.  It seems to me that Keach is suggesting that these should be excluded from the membership (removed), but according to the principles of 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15. They are to be excluded (removed) from the membership while being admonished and noted. The church is not to associate with them in Christian fellowship, unless there is repentance. But this does not mean we must regard them as enemies. We may continue to admonish them as a brother or sister in Christ.   

Notice that the judgment of exclusion that Keach recommends in this case differs from the one that he recommended in the case of full or direct excommunication. 

In the case of direct excommunication, Keach recommends this judgment: 

“That [so and so] being guilty of great iniquity, and not manifesting unfeigned repentance, but refusing to hear the church, I do in the name, and by the authority of Christ committed unto me as pastor of this this church, pronounce and declare that he is to be, and is hereby excommunicated, excluded, or cast out of the congregation, and no longer to be owned a brother, or a member of this church; and this for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (Keach, The Glory Of A True Church, 42-43)  

Here, in the case of the exclusion of members who have departed from one congregation to another in a disorderly way, he recommends this judgment instead:

“That [so and so] …having irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation, we do now adjudge him a non-member, and one that is not to communicate with the church, in the special ordinances of communion, till due satisfaction is given by him.”

Keach does not say that he is “no longer to be owned a brother”. Also, there is no mention of the person being handed over to Satan ”for the destruction of the flesh”. And this would agree with the principles of the proof text he cites, namely, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15. That text, remember,  is about withdrawing from disorderly walkers: “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, ESV).

You say, pastor, what is your point? Why does this matter? Why are you devoting so much time to this?

Let me tell you why. In our day and age, it is not uncommon for Christians to depart from one congregation to join another. And to be clear, it is not forbidden to leave one church and to join another. There may be good reasons for such a transition. And to be clear, even if the reasons the person gives for wanting are questionable, I do believe that a church (with the elders in the lead) ought to, if at all possible, be willing to dismiss them to another church if they insist on departing (see Chauncy, The Doctrine Which Is According To Godliness, page 341 and following). The church is not a prison! Christians have the liberty to choose which church they will join for their edification! But members ought to seek their dismissal. They must not simply depart. They must not run away. They must be faithful to their membership vows and the covenant they made with the other members. When church members depart for no good reason at all or when they run away from problems without seeking their dismissal, great harm is done to the church. It is hurtful to the church. It breaks the bonds of love. It causes division. We cannot ignore this sin and disorder. 

But what shall we do with these members who have departed in an a disorderly and sinful way? What shall we do with them once they have been exhorted to return, and yet show that they have no intention of returning? 

Shall they forever remain as members of our church? That cannot be. 

Shall we simply remove them from our membership and neglect the duty that we have to discipline disorderly persons? That cannot be either. We must obey Christ. We must discipline in obedience to the Scriptures “for the glory of God, the welfare and purity of the church [this church and all true churches], and the restoration and spiritual growth of the offender” (Emmaus Constitution, Article V. Section 1).

Those who leave the church in a sinful and disorderly way must be admonished to return, at the very least, to seek their orderly dismissal. And if they will not return, but run away to another church, they must be excluded from the membership. 

But how should we think of these? How should we regard them? Should we regard them as non-believers and as enemies of the cross of Christ (Matthew 18)? Should we exclude them and hand them over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh in the hopes that they repent so that their spirit may be saved on the last day (1 Corinthians 5)? Or should we regard them as brethren who are walking in a disorderly manner (2 Thessamonians 3)?

I say, it depends. It depends on how they departed. I do believe the church (with the elders in the lead) has the freedom and ability to come to conclusions and to render judgments in these matters. I think we may distinguish between those who have departed the church in such a way that they have destroyed the credibility of their profession of faith and those who have departed as disorderly persons who ought to be withdrawn from and admonished as brothers and sisters. 

The key question is, has the person destroyed the credibility of their profession of faith in the way they have departed? Perhaps they have! Perhaps they have departed for the world. Or perhaps they have run off to another church while slandering their brethren and bringing great division to the church they have left. If such is the case, they should be excluded and not owned as brethren, given their unrepentant sin. But perhaps they have not destroyed the credibility of their profession. Perhaps they have simply acted in an immature, foolish, and disorderly way. If this is the opinion of the congregation (with the elders in the lead), then it is best to remove them from membership while not regarding them as an enemy, but warning them as brethren, that is to say, by noting them and withdrawing from them according to the principles found in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15.

In cases such as this, the judgment that Keach recommends is sufficient:  

“That [so and so] …having irregularly and sinfully withdrawn himself from the communion of the congregation, we do now adjudge him a non-member, and one that is not to communicate with the church, in the special ordinances of communion, till due satisfaction is given by him.”

Whatever church the individual attempts to run off to ought to respect this judgment by admonishing the brother or sister to repent, and by refusing to receive them into their communion until due satisfaction is given.  And if another church decides to receive them (as is often the case these days), we take comfort in the promise of Christ that, so long as we have not erred in our judgments, “whatever [we] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever [we] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18, ESV). Christ Jesus, the Lord and Chief Shepherd of the chuch will judge between us. 

Conclusion

I’ll conclude now with a few very brief suggestions for application.

One, know that church discipline is a vital part of Christian discipleship and is required of every true church of Jesus Christ. If you are a disciple of Jesus, you must be a member of a local church. And as a member of a local church, you are subject to the discipline of that church. This is a very good thing, and you must know this. 

Two, as a member, not only are you subject to the discipline of the church for the good of your soul, but you must also participate in formal church discipline when called upon to do so. “Tell it to the church”, Matthew 18  says. It does not say tell it to the elders, but tell it to the church. In 1 Corinthians 5,  it is the church that is called to excommunicate the unrepentant sinner. In 2 Thessalonians 3, it is the church that is called to withdraw from the disorderly walker. Church members must participate in a way that is appropriate to their position in the church in formal church discipline cases.  

Three, while it is true that the members must participate in formal church discipline, the elders must lead. Oftentimes, the elders will have invested many, many hours into church discipline cases before the matter is even brought to the attention of the church. The members must respect the authority that Christ has given to the elders to oversee and to lead in the government of the church. 

Four, when conducting church discipline, all must proceed in a spirit of humility with patience and gentleness. “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:1–2, ESV) 

Five, when the church renders judgments to withdraw from, excommunicate, or exclude sinners, we must know that there is power in the judgment (provided that we have not erred), for Christ has given this power to the church, saying, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matthew 18:18–20, ESV).  Church discipline must be conducted seriously and solemnly, therefore. 

Old Testament Reading: Psalm 31

“TO THE CHOIRMASTER. A PSALM OF DAVID. In you, O LORD, do I take refuge; let me never be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me! Incline your ear to me; rescue me speedily! Be a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me! For you are my rock and my fortress; and for your name’s sake you lead me and guide me; you take me out of the net they have hidden for me, for you are my refuge. Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O LORD, faithful God. I hate those who pay regard to worthless idols, but I trust in the LORD. I will rejoice and be glad in your steadfast love, because you have seen my affliction; you have known the distress of my soul, and you have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; you have set my feet in a broad place. Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am in distress; my eye is wasted from grief; my soul and my body also. For my life is spent with sorrow, and my years with sighing; my strength fails because of my iniquity, and my bones waste away. Because of all my adversaries I have become a reproach, especially to my neighbors, and an object of dread to my acquaintances; those who see me in the street flee from me. I have been forgotten like one who is dead; I have become like a broken vessel. For I hear the whispering of many— terror on every side!— as they scheme together against me, as they plot to take my life. But I trust in you, O LORD; I say, ‘You are my God.’ My times are in your hand; rescue me from the hand of my enemies and from my persecutors! Make your face shine on your servant; save me in your steadfast love! O LORD, let me not be put to shame, for I call upon you; let the wicked be put to shame; let them go silently to Sheol. Let the lying lips be mute, which speak insolently against the righteous in pride and contempt. Oh, how abundant is your goodness, which you have stored up for those who fear you and worked for those who take refuge in you, in the sight of the children of mankind! In the cover of your presence you hide them from the plots of men; you store them in your shelter from the strife of tongues. Blessed be the LORD, for he has wondrously shown his steadfast love to me when I was in a besieged city. I had said in my alarm, ‘I am cut off from your sight.’ But you heard the voice of my pleas for mercy when I cried to you for help. Love the LORD, all you his saints! The LORD preserves the faithful but abundantly repays the one who acts in pride. Be strong, and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the LORD!” (Psalm 31, ESV)

New Testament Reading: Luke 22:24-30

“A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. ‘You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:24–30, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church, but without the benefit of proofreading.

Sermon

I find this passage to be very sobering. These eleven disciples who remained with Jesus were good men. They were devout followers of Jesus Christ. Besides Christ himself, these men would occupy the most important positions within Christ’s church. They would be the very foundation stones of the  New Covenant temple of God, set alongside Christ, the Cornerstone (see Ephesians 2:20). And yet we observe that even these most excellent men were at first plagued by the sins of pride and selfish ambition. If these sins were present in the hearts of Peter, James, John, and the others, then it is certainly possible for us to be plagued by these heart sins as well. We must be on guard against the sins of pride and selfish ambition. 

A Dispute Arose Over Who Is Greatest 

Luke tells that “A dispute… arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” 

This is a very sad report that Luke brings, for this was not the first time these men had argued about which of them was the greatest. 

Back in Luke 9:46, we were told that, “An argument arose among [the twelve disciples] as to which of them was the greatest. But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, ‘Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great’” (Luke 9:46–48, ESV). 

Clearly, the disciples of Jesus did not learn their lesson. They continued to carry within their hearts a desire for preeminence within Christ’s kingdom. And this sinful desire that resided in their hearts reared its ugly head and showed itself in this instance.  Again, Luke says, “A dispute… arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” 

I appreciate the words of J.C. Ryle in his commentary on this passage. “The sin before us is a very old one. Ambition, self-esteem, and self-conceit lie deep at the bottom of all men’s hearts, and often in the hearts where they are least suspected. Thousands fancy that they are humble, who cannot bear to see an equal more honoured and favoured than themselves. Few indeed can be found who rejoice heartily in a neighbour’s promotion over their own heads. The quantity of envy and jealousy in the world is a glaring proof of the prevalence of pride. Men would not envy a brother’s advancement, if they had not a secret thought that their own merit was greater than his. Let us live on our guard against this sore disease, if we make any profession of serving Christ. The harm that it has done to the church of Christ is far beyond calculation. Let us learn to take pleasure in the prosperity of others, and to be content with the lowest place for ourselves. The rule given to the Philippians should be often before our eyes;—’In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.’ The example of John the Baptist is a bright instance of the spirit at which we would aim. He said of our Lord, ‘he must increase, but I must decrease’ (Phil. 2:3; John 3:30).” (Ryle, Luke, vol. 2, p. 300). This is a very good exhortation that Ryle delivers. Hear it again: “Let us live on our guard against this sore disease [of ambition, self-esteem, and self-conceit], if we make any profession of serving Christ.” 

We have briefly considered the internal cause of this dispute, namely, pride and selfish ambition in the heart. But what were the external factors that precipitated this dispute? I can see two possible factors.

First of all, the disciples of Jesus could clearly see that the beginning of Christ’s kingdom was very near. From the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, John the Baptist and Jesus declared that the kingdom of God was at hand and that Christ was the king of that kingdom. Expectations concerning the soon arrival of the kingdom of Christ grew over time. That the start of Christ’s kingdom was very near became clear when Jesus finally entered Jerusalem and was received by the multitudes as he was. And do not forget what Christ said to his disciples while celebrating the Passover with them. “And he said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God’” (Luke 22:15–16, ESV). A little later, he said, “For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:18, ESV). Clearly, these disciples of Jesus thought that the beginning of Jesus’ kingdom was just around the corner, and so it was. And clearly, they believed that Christ’s kingdom would be glorious from the beginning. They expected the kingdom of Christ to bring earthly blessings—fame, fortune, power, and prestige. And so they jockeyed for position and disputed amongst themselves “as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.”

Secondly, we should not forget what Jesus had just said to them regarding a betrayer in their midst. “‘But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!’ And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this” (Luke 22:21–23, ESV). The dispute regarding who was the greatest could have been an attempt to prove commitment and devotion to Jesus. 

I do wonder whose voices were the loudest. We know that Peter, James, and John were recognized leaders among the twelve. Do not forget that at one point, the mother of James and John approached Jesus to request that her sons be regarded as the greatest in his kingdom (Matthew 20:20-23). And notice how Christ focuses his attention on Peter in the following passage to rebuke and humble him: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31–32, ESV). 

There is never a good time for disciples of Jesus to argue over who is the greatest, but I think you’d agree that this was a most inappropriate time to be arguing about these things.

Consider the way that Jesus had served them. He had washed their feet. 

Consider what Jesus had just said regarding the service he would soon perform for them. “This is my body, which is given for you” (Luke 22:19, ESV). And, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20, ESV).

That Jesus would soon undergo extreme suffering was clearly communicated. And yet, instead of tending to his needs, savoring the short time that was left, and encouraging him in his mission, his disciples bickered with each other. 

If ever unity was needed amongst the disciples, it was now. But the disciples were severely divided. They were divided because of the pride and selfish ambition that resided in their hearts.  

This text should have a sobering effect on all Christians, and especially those who hold leadership positions within Christ’s church. 

“What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:1–4, ESV).

Christian Greatness Defined

Jesus must have been very grieved over the fact that his disciples were arguing with one another over who was the greatest, especially at the time they did. But how did Christ respond to them? Did he lose his temper? Did he throw up his hands in frustration and walk away? Did he express irritation? No, he patiently and graciously taught his disciple. Consider how patient and kind Jesus is with us, brothers and sisters. Even as his hour of great suffering drew near, he cared for his disciples and patiently instructed them. And this is how he treats us, if we are his disciples. 

“And he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves’” (Luke 22:25–27, ESV).

Notice this: Jesus did not deny that some will be great in his kingdom or that some will be called to lead and to exercise authority. In fact, eleven of these men who were, at this time, arguing with each other about who would be the greatest would serve as Apostles of Jesus Christ. And these Apostles would soon see to it that the gospel of the kingdom was preached, that churches were planted, and that elders would be appointed in the churches. Elders, as you know, are called to lead (Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24) and to rule (1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17) within Christ’s church.

Jesus did not deny that some would be great, and that some would lead and rule authoritatively, but he did clarify what true greatness looks like in his kingdom, and how those who rule and possess authority are to think and behave. In brief, those who are great in Christ’s kingdom will not behave like those who are great in the kingdoms of this world, for Christ’s kingdom is an upside-down kingdom when compared to the kingdoms of the earth.     

How do those who are great in the kingdoms of this world behave? They exercise lordship over their subjects. This means that they use their power and authority to lord it over their people. And they demand the title, benefactor. In other words, they demand that their subjects bow to them and give them honor and glory. 

Christ speaks to his disciples, saying, “But not so with you.” “Rather”, in contrast to this, “let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.” This is a command, brothers and sisters. It is more evident in the Greek than in the English, but it is most certainly a command: “let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and [let] the leader [become] as one who serves.” 

The meaning is clear. Whereas those with power and authority in the world are often characterized by self-exalting and self-serving pride, those with power and authority in Christ’s church must be characterized by humility and service.  

Why is this character expected of those who lead in Christ’s kingdom? Because it is the character of the King of this kingdom. This is the point that Jesus makes in verses 26-27: “For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves” (Luke 22:26–27, ESV). Christ the King is a servant king. He is the king who washed the feet of his subjects. He is the king who gave his body to be broken and his blood to be shed for his people. It is no surprise, therefore, that those who hold positions of authority in his kingdom are expected to exhibit the same qualities or characteristics that he has. Those who are truly great in Christ’s kingdom will be characterized by humility and servanthood, as is our Lord.

It is interesting to consider how often this theme of humility and servanthood appears in the New Testament letters of the Apostles. 

Paul the Apostle stresses this Philippians 2, saying, “So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:1–11, ESV)

And listen to what Peter says to elders in 1 Peter 5:“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1–3, ESV).

Application:

Pastors/Elders

Deacons

Husbands

Parents

All

Grace Shown To Sinners

“You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:28–30, ESV).

Christ showed much patience and grace to these disciples. He did not cast them off, but was faithful to finish the work he had started in them. They did learn to be selfless and humble leaders. Most would lay down their own lives in the service of Christ. 

He commended them for abiding, saying. “You are those who have stayed with me in my trials…” Abiding in Christ is what matters.

He assigned to them a kingdom, saying, “and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” This kingdom was soon to be inaugurated and will one day be consummated.

Notice, the kingdom is Christ’s. We eat at his table and serve under his kingship. 

Conclusion