Them that sin rebuke before all

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I don't think the point of that scripture, the "spirit of the law" here is intended to humiliate Christians who are wrestling with a personal stronghold.

It's not edifying to humiliate anyone.


In fact, it's almost a sure way to seriously hurt and discourage a whole lot of good people in a very short amount of time.


I won't vote on this poll, but I believe this scripture should be acted upon in the rare case where some one claiming to be saved decides to commit flagrant sin, openly and unrepentantly.

I 100% agree with you, and that attitude is pointed out in Galatians where Paul said for those who are spiritual to restore such a person in a spirit of meekness, considering themselves lest they also be tempted.

The state of the person doing the restoration is dictated as "spiritual." Also, their attitude is specified: "in a spirit of meekness", which means "gentleness" or "humility", and further clarifies that they should consider themselves lest they also be tempted. (e.g., find themselves in the same spot someday)

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I 100% agree with you, and that attitude is pointed out in Galatians where Paul said for those who are spiritual to restore such a person in a spirit of meekness, considering themselves lest they also be tempted.

The state of the person doing the restoration is dictated as "spiritual." Also, their attitude is specified: "in a spirit of meekness", which means "gentleness" or "humility", and further clarifies that they should consider themselves lest they also be tempted. (e.g., find themselves in the same spot someday)

And the pastors who brag about "skinning the saints" aren't usually doing it in a spirit of meekness.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

And the pastors who brag about "skinning the saints" aren't usually doing it in a spirit of meekness.

EggggZactly!

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

According to Matthew, matters aren't brought before the church unless they can't be resolved privately.

If something is resolved privately, and the sinner repents (to the person he wronged and to God), what benefit is there behind bringing it before the church?

I understand the problem. However, the instructions in Matthew 18 are concerned with problems and differences that arise between the brethren, not addressing spiritual transgressions. Yet, even in these instructions, if the transgressor fails to repent, the final appeal is to the entire assembly for judgment, not to an elder or pastor, or some other official.

Over the centuries the Western church has lost both its authority and its power. Humanism has taken hold and now masks the gospel with a holy feel good doctrine and don't hurt anyone's feelings mentality.

Doing everything behind 'closed doors' has taken the place of open communication, assigning responsibility and demanding accountability. Remember, after Jesus complemented Peter for his spiritual insight, Jesus then openly called him Satan for his spiritual failure. Today, we have become a religion of scriptural manipulators in order to gain support for the doctrines of men.

Over these years, we have created more sin for people to fall into than God ever identified - as we have worked to perfect a performance based religion and leaving the God ordained relationship based religion behind us. Rules and regulations have replace love and compassion. As an example, the laws of the modern church have even made Jesus and Paul out to be sinners, and even to being tempters of men into sin over the drinking of wine. There is little difference between the Pharisees and Scribes of old and the church leadership of today, and Matthew 23 still applies.

No, my friends, as long as we perform according to the dictates of some group of self-appointed spiritual leaders, we feel comfortable in our self-justified salvation. We need to re-read Matthew chapters 5-7, and once again sit at the feet of the Master and then the need for open rebukes will fade from our congregations. Forget the teaching of Jesus, and the problems such as we find in 1 Cor 5 and Acts 5 will again raise their heads - even as we see now going on throughout the body of Christ.

We have been taught to never openly challenge a religious leader - on anything. That doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the Bible! No where!

Now, take a long, hard look at the dirty little secretes being exposed and then quickly hushed up, even among the so-called elite of the apostolic movement. The church leadership has become corrupt and stands in need of cleansing. Yet, today many say 1 Timothy 5:20 no longer applies to the church.

What authority and responsibility does a so-called ordinary saint of God have? Whatever gifting and calling God has placed upon their lives. While training is necessary, you do not need the approval of any man to do what God Himself has called you to do or instructed you to do in the scriptures. Reading and implementing what is written for every believer in Christ, as presented in the word of God, is a great place to start. The question still remains as it always has: What does the word say?

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I once read the statement in the title. Do yall agree with it?

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Timothy 5:20 KJV Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Anyone who agrees with the bible would agree with this. We might not agree as to HOW IT IS DONE, but it is Bible.

1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
1Ti 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.


Is the "Them that sin" the elders mentioned in the previous verse?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

I understand the problem. However, the instructions in Matthew 18 are concerned with problems and differences that arise between the brethren, not addressing spiritual transgressions. Yet, even in these instructions, if the transgressor fails to repent, the final appeal is to the entire assembly for judgment, not to an elder or pastor, or some other official.

Over the centuries the Western church has lost both its authority and its power. Humanism has taken hold and now masks the gospel with a holy feel good doctrine and don't hurt anyone's feelings mentality.

Doing everything behind 'closed doors' has taken the place of open communication, assigning responsibility and demanding accountability. Remember, after Jesus complemented Peter for his spiritual insight, Jesus then openly called him Satan for his spiritual failure. Today, we have become a religion of scriptural manipulators in order to gain support for the doctrines of men.

Over these years, we have created more sin for people to fall into than God ever identified - as we have worked to perfect a performance based religion and leaving the God ordained relationship based religion behind us. Rules and regulations have replace love and compassion. As an example, the laws of the modern church have even made Jesus and Paul out to be sinners, and even to being tempters of men into sin over the drinking of wine. There is little difference between the Pharisees and Scribes of old and the church leadership of today, and Matthew 23 still applies.

No, my friends, as long as we perform according to the dictates of some group of self-appointed spiritual leaders, we feel comfortable in our self-justified salvation. We need to re-read Matthew chapters 5-7, and once again sit at the feet of the Master and then the need for open rebukes will fade from our congregations. Forget the teaching of Jesus, and the problems such as we find in 1 Cor 5 and Acts 5 will again raise their heads - even as we see now going on throughout the body of Christ.

We have been taught to never openly challenge a religious leader - on anything. That doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the Bible! No where!

Now, take a long, hard look at the dirty little secretes being exposed and then quickly hushed up, even among the so-called elite of the apostolic movement. The church leadership has become corrupt and stands in need of cleansing. Yet, today many say 1 Timothy 5:20 no longer applies to the church.

What authority and responsibility does a so-called ordinary saint of God have? Whatever gifting and calling God has placed upon their lives. While training is necessary, you do not need the approval of any man to do what God Himself has called you to do or instructed you to do in the scriptures. Reading and implementing what is written for every believer in Christ, as presented in the word of God, is a great place to start. The question still remains as it always has: What does the word say?

Good post, and idealistically, I agree. However, in most cases, I've seen this rebuking thing only applied to saints. Accountability and transparency don't work unless they extend all the way to the top.

The Apostolic church today is not a place where I would feel comfortable confessing my faults, because in MOST cases, I would expect to be met with judgment. Not restoration or mercy. The point of confessing faults is so that the church can HELP the person struggling. Some churches are starting to wake up and change the environment, but across the board there is often such a stigma that saints don't even feel comfortable going to the altar at the end of service.

The point of a rebuke is STILL meant to help that person reconcile with God and other Christians. IF it doesn't work, then the church is to consider that person a sinner.

I believe EA posted awhile back about openly rebuking a young man in his church. I understand that it happens, but it should be rare, and it should be Holy Ghost directed. It isn't a tool to punish people, but a principle used to help Christians "overtaken in a fault" or struggling with sin. Paul rebuked Ananias and Sapphira because the Holy Ghost prompted him to do so. They were punished by God--not Paul. Paul didn't kill them.

As for the reference in Matthew...trespass means the same as "sin" in the I Timothy reference. So I'm not convinced that it only means some minor aggravation--otherwise why the extreme measure of taking it before the whole church in the end and regarding them as a sinner if they don't concede?

[Jeffrey]

And the only man that was actually publicly rebuked -- as well as given a "time out" was involved in gross sin (incest) and was parading it around the community. This is not an example for normative church discipline, and its unfortunate when readers of the Epistles make those assumptions.

Rebuke is not always a formal, stinging punishment. Sometimes it's simply a caution, warning, a confrontation that "you are wrong here." We use this foreign word "rebuke" in an ethereal sense almost.

We can rebuke schisms and general false doctrines publicly, but handling people like that is nothing more than manipulation, abuse and anti-Gospel behavior.

The most appropriate form of rebuke is in the counsel of elders, not in humiliation in front of an entire community.

[missourimary]

I have to admit, I struggle with this topic. Open rebuke for obvious sin is one thing. Calling a woman a Jezebel (and worse) for supposedly speaking out of turn or for not marrying the person the pastor chose is wrong.
Telling a 13 year old girl that she'll be raped for wearing a knee length skirt, in front of several hundred people is wrong.
Threatening people with expulsion for having the internet or looking at a DVD rack at Walmart is wrong.
Parading all the teenaged girls around the front of the church, catcalling and telling the boys which are marriageable, according to which one person feels have a "right spirit" and are "submissive" is wrong.
Standing every young person from 5-18 on the altar if they failed a certain Bible quiz and announcing that they failed is wrong.


Some things need to be rebuked openly. Some things do not.

[pelathais]

The antecedent of the pronoun "them" are the "elders" and "widows" spoken of throughout this chapter.

A lot of people read right past that fact because verse 1 would appear to contradict verse 20, then. However, in verse one we are told to NOT " epiplasso " an elder. This Greek word means to literally "pound" on; or in the context of using speech to "pound" conveys the idea of nagging.

Verse 20 tells us that, "Them that sin" are to be " elegko " or to admonish, convict or to tell the faults of. But who is this "Them?"

They are the "elders" in verse 19 against whom an accusation has been made properly and before witnesses.

The practice of of having an elder or pastor call out the "sins" of a lay person in front of the congregation is pretty much without support here. There may be circumstances where such a painful thing is required. We have an example of one such case in Corinth. That particular case however was evidently handled well as the offending brother repented and was later received with love back into the fellowship.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The antecedent of the pronoun "them" are the "elders" and "widows" spoken of throughout this chapter.

A lot of people read right past that fact because verse 1 would appear to contradict verse 20, then. However, in verse one we are told to NOT " epiplasso " an elder. This Greek word means to literally "pound" on; or in the context of using speech to "pound" conveys the idea of nagging.

Verse 20 tells us that, "Them that sin" are to be " elegko " or to admonish, convict or to tell the faults of. But who is this "Them?"

They are the "elders" in verse 19 against whom an accusation has been made properly and before witnesses.

The practice of of having an elder or pastor call out the "sins" of a lay person in front of the congregation is pretty much without support here. There may be circumstances where such a painful thing is required. We have an example of one such case in Corinth. That particular case however was evidently handled well as the offending brother repented and was later received with love back into the fellowship.

I actually like agreeing with you.