Them that sin rebuke before all

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

LOL!!!! That is a really common verse--I'm sure most people will know immediately that it's found in scripture.

I voted that I agree, but the Bible gives good guidelines for the application of the scripture:

1. We aren't supposed to "receive" an accusation against an elder without witnesses. This would be a skip to step two in the guidelines Jesus provided. To me, this eliminates the gossip, because you're supposed to be talking TO the accused in front of witnesses.

I Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Meaning of "receive" [not] from Strong's - to accept near, that is, admit or (by implication) delight in: - receive.

2. Those who are spiritual should restore [a man overtaken in a fault] with a spirit of meekness.

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness[gentleness; humility]; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.


3. The correct process is found here, and it fits in neatly with the concept of not accepting an accusation without 2-3 witnesses:

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Verse 15 basically lets us know that if it can be worked out in private, it should be.

Verse 16 lets us know to be discreet--involve 2-3 more people in the process.

Verse 17 is a final, more radical approach, where the problem is presented to the entire church, and if the brother still won't concede, then consider him to be a sinner.

Final point: It says to rebuke those that SIN. If it's not a matter of sin, there should be no rebuke, open or otherwise.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Yes, when I read it in the context of the whole chapter (what a concept ), it does seem to be referring to elders.

Amen! lololol

[n david]

Originally Posted by jfrog

By the way I agree... But how should that verse be applied?

I'd like to read more into the epistles. My first thought was to post the scripture MB posted from Matthew, but I don't know if that applies in the context of this.

The original passage from the question here speaks specifically of sin. The passage of Matthew only states if a person trespasses against another person and seems to be more about how to resolve personal conflict, rather than how to address sin.

I'm not a scholar by any means, but I am interested in subjects like this or on how to apply scripture.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by n david

I'd like to read more into the epistles. My first thought was to post the scripture MB posted from Matthew, but I don't know if that applies in the context of this.

The original passage from the question here speaks specifically of sin. The passage of Matthew only states if a person trespasses against another person and seems to be more about how to resolve personal conflict, rather than how to address sin.

I'm not a scholar by any means, but I am interested in subjects like this or on how to apply scripture.

The two verses have a slightly different connotation as you pointed out, but the word used for "sin" in I Timothy and "trespass" in Matthew are the same.

G264 - hamartanō

"...properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass."

[n david]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The two verses have a slightly different connotation as you pointed out, but the word used for "sin" in I Timothy and "trespass" in Matthew are the same.

G264 - hamartanō

"...properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass."

Thanks. It would seem, then, that it would apply and is a good means of guidelines for resolving this type of situation.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by jfrog

anger is a sin?

No, but "Outbursts of wrath" are!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by notofworks

No, but "Outbursts of wrath" are!

Which four letter word was it?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Which four letter word was it?

Uhhhhhhh.............several?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Uhhhhhhh.............several?

lol. well at least ya have a reason when ya use them

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

You're right, that's an interesting question. I can't say that I've EVER heard of an elder being rebuked before all. Well, not in the proper way, anyway. I've certainly heard preachers bash other preachers publicly, but I've never heard of it being done through the proper channels, as described in this passage. (not saying it's never been done, I've just never seen it)

People seem to stress the 'touch not mine anointed' concept, more than proper rebuke when warranted. OR, if a preacher has truly sinned, it's handled behind closed doors.

I've never heard this verse used to apply to elders, either. The "them" has always seemed to apply to "saints".

IMO, if something can be handled privately and discreetly, then it should be.

I would think that open rebuke would be reserved for those who refuse to repent or "hear" the accusation. Even then, there's a difference between making it known to the church and making it public. A rebuke before the church should be a rebuke exercised with only saints present. If that requires a special meeting to be called rather than just opportunistically using a church service with a mixed crowd, then that's what should be done.

In my experience, this verse has definitely been overused on saints. I've known pastors who do all their rebuking from the pulpit without ever approaching people privately or individually first for resolution. That's also out of line with the scriptural method, and I definitely don't see how it's edifying to the body in any way.