Degrees of Excommunication within Congregations and Presbyteries

 

In the Old Testament church, the Jews would exclude from the holy things those who were tainted with uncleanness and/or ritual impurity. Thus Miriam was excluded from the camp while she was infected with leprosy (Numbers 12:15). The sons of Korah were punished and cursed for their rebellion against Moses (Numbers 16).  

It was required of those who would partake of the Passover that they were morally and ritually clean before the Law of God (Ezra 6:21; Ezekiel 22:26). This provides some strong biblical precedent for congregations having the authority to bar unrepentant offenders from the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 5:6-7). 

The Scottish minister and Hebraist scholar John Weemes (1579-1636) mentions the following degrees or levels of excommunication amongst the Jews (The Christian Synagogue [London: John Bellamy, 1633], pg. 146). Rabbinic literature and the Jewish halakhah gives us more insight into each of them: 

1) Niddui (נִדוּי) - This refers to when one is cast out of the synagogue. An offender may be warned 3 times (twice in one day, and once in another day). This period alone was strict enough to impose that no members of the offender’s immediate household may sit even with four cubits of his presence (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 334). Excommunication itself lasts for a 30-day period. If the offender does not repent within that time frame, another 30 days is repeated. After that, a formal judgment is pronounced against him. They are, of course, still permitted to pray in the synagogue and study the Torah.   

“When it is stated that a generally excommunicated person is subject to all the restrictions of excommunication, this applies specifically to someone excommunicated by a court, which means they are excommunicated from everyone. This applies whether the individual failed to come to court, did not comply with a ruling, acted rebelliously, or committed a transgression. Whether the excommunication was issued by the court or by individuals, the restrictions are the same, both in their city and in another city.” (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 334) “Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to him: Rav Ḥisda said as follows: Before excommunicating a person, the court warns him three times, on Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday. The Gemara notes: This applies in a case where one ignores a monetary judgment that was issued against him. He is warned three times that he must repay his debt. But in a case where one behaves disrespectfully toward a Torah scholar, he is immediately ostracized." (Moed Katan, 16a)

2) Cherem (חרמ) - Cherem was a more formal curse and censure upon an offender. The cherem was solemnly pronounced by an assembly of at least 10 (Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, ch. 38). Excommunication was not considered annulled unless formally lifted by the relevant rabbinic or synagogical court (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 334). One famous historical example of the cherem was the ruling against polygamy by Gershom ben Judah (AD 960-1040). Baruch Spinoza was also excommunicated by the Jews. 3) Nezifah (נזפה) - This was a milder form of admonition or rebuke by a learned or eminent person (especially a rabbi or nasi). The person who received such a rebuke would consider themselves excommunicated for 1 day. In Talmudical law, such a person was not required to separate from society (Moed Katan, 16a). The Talmud lists 24 offenses punishable by excommunication (Berakhot, 19a). In the ancient church after the New Testament, there were four degrees of penitence amongst those who had been excommunicated or barred from the Lord’s Supper: προσκλαυσις, ακροασις, ύποπτωσις, συστασις (George Gillespie, Aaron’s rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of Church-government vindicated [Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, and Oliver & Boyd, 1844], pg. 261) [1]. προσκλαυσις - The penitent wept at the church door, asking the congregants to pray for him. [2]. ακροασις - The penitent was admitted to hear preaching amongst the catechumens. [3]. ύποπτωσις - A preparatory reconciliation with the church, with renewed admission into the church, but nonetheless not admitted to the sacrament yet. [3]. συστασις - The penitent was admitted to the sacrament only after there was strong evidence of his sincere and continuing repentance and walk in holiness. The canons of the Synod of Ancyra (AD 314) give us great insight into how the early church dealt with lapsed congregants, backsliders, and those who had yielded during times of persecution or had participated in any way in the pagan worship of idols:

“Concerning those who have been forced to sacrifice, and who, in addition, have partaken of feasts in honour of the idols; as many as were haled away, but afterwards went up with a cheerful countenance, and wore their costliest apparel, and partook with indifference of the feast provided; it is decreed that all such be hearers for one year, and prostrators for three years, and that they communicate in prayers only for two years, and then return to full communion.” (Council of Ancyra [A.D. 314], Canon 4) “As many as have not merely apostatized, but have risen against their brethren and forced them [to apostatize], and have been guilty of their being forced, let these for three years take the place of hearers, and for another term of six years that of prostrators, and for another year let them communicate without oblation, in order that, when they have fulfilled the space of ten years, they may partake of the communion; but during this time the rest of their life must also be enquired into.” (Canon 9) “Let those who have been or who are guilty of bestial lusts, if they have sinned while under twenty years of age, be prostrators fifteen years, and afterwards communicate in prayers; then, having passed five years in this communion, let them have a share in the oblation. But let their life as prostrators be examined, and so let them receive indulgence; and if any have been insatiable in their crimes, then let their time of prostration be prolonged. And if any who have passed this age and had wives, have fallen into this sin, let them be prostrators twenty-five years, and then communicate in prayers; and, after they have been five years in the communion of prayers, let them share the oblation. And if any married men of more than fifty years of age have so sinned, let them be admitted to communion only at the point of death.” (Canon 16) This distinction is also found in Nicaea: “Concerning those who have transgressed without necessity or the confiscation of their property or without danger or anything of this nature, as happened under the tyranny of Licinius, this holy synod decrees that, though they do not deserve leniency, nevertheless they should be treated mercifully. Those therefore among the faithful who genuinely repent shall spend three years among the hearers, for seven years they shall be prostrators, and for two years they shall take part with the people in the prayers, though not in the offering.” (Council of Nicaea, Canon 11) Thus we see that there were differing levels of prostrators, hearers, and those who may partake in prayers, and then the final step was readmission to the Eucharist. “Weeping takes place without the gate of the oratory; and the offender standing there ought to implore the faithful as they enter to offer up prayer on his behalf. Waiting on the word, again, takes place within the gate in the porch, where the offender ought to stand until the catechumens depart, and thereafter he should go forth. For let him hear the Scriptures and doctrine, it is said, and then be put forth, and reckoned unfit for the privilege of prayer. Submission, again, is that one stand within the gate of the temple, and go forth along with the catechumens. Restoration is that one be associated with the faithful, and go not forth with the catechumens; and last of all comes the participation in the holy ordinances.” (Gregory Thaumaturgus, Canonical Epistle, canon 11) Congregationalist Perspective: “For if he [the offender] refuse it, the offended brother is by the mouth of the Elders to tell the Church, and if he hear the Church, and declare the same by penitent confession, he is recovered and gained, and if the Church discern him to be willing to hear, yet not fully convinced of his offense, as in case if hereby; They are to dispense to him a public admonition; which, declaring the offender to lie under the public offense of the Church, does thereby withhold or suspend him from the holy fellowship of the Lord’s Supper, till his offense be removed by penitent confession. If he still continue obstinate they are to cast him out by Excommunication.” (1648 Cambridge Platform, ch. 14, sect. 2) According to Rutherford, one should not leave a church simply because the elders may be negligent for a time in discipling scandalous and profane members. “[They ought to] modestly and reasonably say that Archippus (Col. 4:17) and others do not fulfill their ministry which they have received of the Lord.” (A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland [London: John Bartlet, 1642], pg. 98) There was extensive debate at the Westminster assembly over the excommunication of the incestuous man, particularly whether it was an exercise of extraordinary apostolic power or may rather have set a precedent for ordinary fixed churches (the more standard view). Lazarus Seaman (d. 1675) insisted that excommunication contains both a negative privative act and a positive act (Session 86, November 1, 1643, in Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 2:258). He does not elaborate upon this further. Objection: There is no distinction to show that a congregation may admonish [and bar a person from the Lord’s Supper], and yet not excommunicate. Response: “The proposition in hands may be determined without debating this question; for if excommunication belong to the presbytery in case of appellation, reference, insufficiency, or alteration, it is enough to uphold the truth of the proposition.” (George Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and Other Commissioners at Westminster, pg. 24) Question: Is it necessary for the whole church to be present for the administration of church-censures and acts of excommunication? Answer: Reformed divines have typically answered this question in the affirmative. (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pgs. 40-50; George Gillespie, A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies, Pt. 3, ch. 8) The people ought to help carry out the sentence of excommunication, but not in blind obedience. Consider the following reasons:—

[1]. When the sentence of the elders is unjust, it ought not to be executed by the people. The footmen of Saul justly refused to execute the priests (1 Samuel 22:17).

[2]. There is a difference between the practical certainty of conscience in matters of fact, and in matters of law (juris). In a question of law, all ignorance is culpably evil in those who undertake obedience to unjust commands; the people of the Church should do nothing but what they know to be lawful. The executioner who beheaded John the Baptist sinned, because he was obliged to know that a prophet who rebukes incest in the King ought not to be put to death. The command of superiors does not of itself make an action lawful. 

[3]. In questions of fact, there is not required the same certainty which we see in questions of law. By “question of fact,” we mean a question in which the subject is a matter of fact, but the attribute is a matter of law (The Due Right of Presbyteries, pg. 45), as, for example, where Lord’s priests in giving David the shew-bread committed treason against King Saul? It is this type of uncertainty which is excusable in the congregation when it comes to excommunication:

“Now though Soldiers, Lictors, or People join to the execution of a sentence, and have their doubtings anent the fidelity of the witnesses, yet when all diligence morally possible is given to try the matter, they may well be said to do in faith, though they have not certainty of faith concerning the fact, because there cannot be certainty of Divine Faith in facts; men’s confession, sense, the Testimony of witnesses cannot breed Divine Faith: yea here the Judge himself may condemn the innocent, and yet the sentence of the Judge may be most just because the witnesses are Liars, and the Judge giveth out that sentence in Faith, because God’s Word hath commanded him to proceed,....if they [the Congregation] know the fact in Law deserveth such and such punishments, where the sentence is not manifestly false and unjust, but in the matter of Law just, though erroneous in matter of fact, all possible diligence being used by the judges, they are to execute that sentence upon the testimony of the Judges, though they be not personally present at the proceedings of the Judges and Eldership.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pgs. 46-47)

[4]. It is not absolutely necessary that every individual member of the Congregation be present. Some may be absent in cases of sickness, far-away travel, imprisonment, etc. “Mr Seaman said, A Christian, by baptism is made a member of the whole visible church, —must therefore the whole be convened, because his membership concerns them all?” (February 9, 1644 in George Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and Other Commissioners at Westminster, pg. 15) 

[5]. Only Elders have judicial authority in excommunication. The hearing of testimonies was given to them (1 Timothy 5:19). If all of these types of acts were given to the people (which belong to pastors and ruling elders), why not they (including women and children) receive the entire office itself? The daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses, Eleazar, and the priests, as judges, and the congregation were witnesses (Numbers 27:1-2). The judicial sentence of their inheritance was given by Moses (vv. 6-7). 

“Excommunicated persons though they be debarred from the Lord’s Supper, and delivered to Satan, and to be accompted as heathen and publicans, yet are they not altogether and every way cut off from the visible church….our meaning is, that the excommunicated person is deprived of actual fellowship with Christ in the Seales of the Covenant.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, pg. 272, 275)

Excommunication is a medicinal ordinance, not a vindictive one (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:12). Ergo, such a person is not altogether cut off from the Church, since he is still able to hear the preaching of the Word (though barred from the sacraments) for the means of his salvation and restoration to church communion. 

Some of the scholastics, such as Franciscio Suarez (Francisco Suarez, De Censuris in Communi, disp. 5, sect. 1) and Domingo de Soto, believed that excommunication did not remove the baptismal character or passive power to receive sacraments. Rather, an excommunicated person is deprived of all actual fellowship with Christ in the seals of the Covenant of Grace. 

Congregationalists have also erred in their view of excommunication, primarily stemming from their belief that only regenerated persons are true members of the visible church catholic (John Cotton, The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, ch. 3, sect. 3). It would follow from this that none are to be excommunicated but regenerated persons, and then they could not be cast out of the visible church, since they are the essential matter of it, as the Congregationalists teach.