# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S367
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 367

9. The purposes of public rebuke are both to warn and instruct
the church, and to offer spiritual care to the offender. Public
rebuke is intended to enlist the aid of fellow Christians in
correcting the offender and to help them avoid the same
offense. By God’s grace, the Holy Spirit will lead the offender
to repentance, whereupon he or she should receive God’s
absolving and restorative grace in Word and sacraments.

The Commission offers this brief report with the earnest prayer
that it will be a blessing to the church as we live and work together
in the spirit of St. Paul’s charge that we be “eager to maintain the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Notes

1. This report has been prepared in response to an October 28,
2002, request from President Gerald Kieschnick that the Commis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations “prepare a study on the ex-
planation to the Eighth Commandment found in Luther’s Large
Catechism” and that the Commission “give special attention to the
notion of public rebuke being given to public sin.” In preparing this
report the Commission notes that former Vice President Robert
Kuhn requested the two seminaries of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod to prepare a response to how Matthew 18 and the Eighth
Commandment relate to public error in the church. The Department
of Systematics of Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, pre-
pared a brief response (March 9, 2000), which is available at:
www.lifeoftheworld.com/believe/ statements/sept2000report.php.

2. Martin Luther, “That a Christian Assembly or Congregation
Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Ap-
point, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture”
(1523), Luther’s Works [LW], American Edition (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1970), 39:306-308. C. F. W. Walther, The Form of
a Christian Congregation, trans. J. T. Mueller (St. Louis: Concor-
dia Publishing House, 1987 [Concordia Heritage Series Reprint}),
31-34. A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri
Synod (1932), par. 30: “Naturally all Christians have also the right
and the duty to judge and decide matters of doctrine, not according
to their own notions, of course, but according to the Word of God,
1 John 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:11.”

3. The Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J.
Wengert (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000), 424. Luther’s
explanation of the Eighth Commandment extends from paragraphs
222-291. Hereafter references from this section will be cited by
paragraph.

4. As his mention of the judge suggests, Luther maintains a dis-
tinction between those who have a vocation to reprove wrong and
punish evil and those who do not: “So you see that we are absolutely
forbidden to speak evil of our neighbor. Exception is made, how-
ever, of civil magistrates, preachers, and fathers and mothers in or-
der that we may interpret this commandment in such a way that evil
does not go unpunished. .. Likewise, although no one personally has
the right to judge and condemn anyone, yet if they are commanded
to do so and fail to do it, they sin as much as those who take the law
into their own hands apart from any office” (274).

5. A much fuller description of the events narrated here can be
found in Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation,
1483-1521, trans. by James L. Schaaf (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1985), 239-73, 299-348, 389-476.

6. Martin Luther, “Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers
(1532), LW 40:387-88.

7. Scott H. Hendrix, Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Refor-
mation Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 156.

8. “To the Christian Nobility,” LW 44:135.

9. “Epistle 1202” in Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto: Uni-
versity of Toronto Press, 1988), 8:203.

10. The Book of Concord, Kolb- Wengert, 309.

11. Ibid., 336. ;

12. Ibid., 338.

13. Ibid.

14. C. F. W. Walther, Americanisch-Lutherische Pastoralthe-
ologie (St. Louis, Mo.: Druckerei der Synode von Missouri, Ohio
u. a. Staaten, 1872), 325.

15. Jeffery A. Gibbs and Jeffrey J. Kloha, “‘Following’ Matthew
18: Interpreting Matthew 18:15-20 in Its Context,” Concordia
Journal 29 (January 2003): 15. See also David Scaer’s section on
“Warning, Discipline, and Restoration” in Discourses in Matthew:
Jesus Teaches the Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
2004), 329-38.

16. Gibbs and Kloha make the added point that Matt. 18:15-18
“does not apply equally to every situation that needs to be corrected
in the church.” In the case of one who has publicly taught false doc-
trine, “unless the false teaching is of such a nature that one fears
that the person teaching it might be lost and in need of being gained,
itis hard to see how ‘Matthew 18’ can be used as a sort of legal re-
quirement for dealing with situations of that sort.” Ibid., 19.

17. John H. C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology: A Handbook of Scrip-
tural Principles Written Especially for Pastors of the Lutheran
Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1932; 1977 reprint
edition), 232.

18 Of course, Jesus’ words cannot be understood to mean that
He is giving a blanket approval to everything that the scribes taught
(see Matt. 15:1-9). See Martin Franzmann, Follow Me: Disciple-
ship According to Saint Matthew (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1961; 1982 reprint edition), 170.

19. Ibid., 171. 1. H. Marshall says that the word “introduces an
expression of pity for those who stand under divine judgment.” (The
Gospel of Luke [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1992 reprint edition], 255.)

20. Luther pointed out in his lectures on Galatians that Jerome
(and following him, Erasmus) had considered this rebuke a pre-
tense. Luther argued that this was a genuine rebuke and quoted Au-
gustine in support. LW 26:107-108.

21. This text reads: “A single witness shall not suffice against a
person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any of-
fense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses
or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious
witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties
to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and
the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire
diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his
brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to
his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the
rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil
among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

22. Some scholars hold that the process outlined in 1 Tim.
5:19-20 requiring others to agree to the evidence against the ac-
cused is not only dependent on Deut. 19:15 but also reflects the
teaching of Jesus in Matt. 18:16. See, e.g., George W. Knight III,
The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publish-
ing Company, 1992), 235.

23. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), 126-27.

_ 24. The participle here is in the present tense, signifying con-
tinuous action and suggesting that the reference is not a one-time
offense (tovdg GLaptavovtas).

25. The Book of Concord, Kolb-Wengert, 208-209.

26. Ibid., 293.

27. People in the sixteenth century believed that “loneliness was
the worst form of poverty” and all but the most ascetic shunned soli-
tude (Philippe Ariés, “Introduction” in A History of Private Life.
III: Passions of the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press,
1989], 5.). Privacy, at least as we understand it today, is the creation

2007 Convention Workbook