LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 364

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

364 . THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but
not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice” (Matt.
23:2-3). Thus, Jesus was not questioning the Pharisees’ authority
to teach God’s Word but how they exercised that authority. His re-
buke—as devastating as it might have been to their standing with
the crowds—was clearly not aimed at questioning their right to
teach but rather what they taught.'*

We learn from Jesus’ closing lament over Jerusalem, which fol-
lows the seven “woes” and concludes chapter 23, that He took no
pleasure in announcing the fate of those who stubbornly resisted
God’s gracious invitation. Rather, deep remorse characterizes His
final words spoken to the crowds in the Gospel of Matthew: “How
often would | have gathered your children together as a hen gath-
ers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” (Matt. 23:37)
As Martin Franzmann has noted, the cry “Woe!” (ovat) “is not
merely a cry of wrath but the cry of wrath mingled with grief.”

C. Galatians 2

Another oft-cited case of public rebuke of public sin in the New
Testament is Paul’s account in Galatians 2 of his confrontation with
Peter. “But when Cephas came to Antioch,” Paul reports, “I op-
posed him to his face because he stood condemned” (2:11). Paul
publicly censures Peter’s behavior because—as in the case of Je-
sus’ denunciation of the Pharisees—the truth of the Gospel itself
was at stake. Paul wrote, “But when I saw that their conduct was
not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them
all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how
can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (2:14).

Contemporary applications of a biblical narrative such as this
are understandably difficult, especially also because we do not
know what preceded and what followed the event related here. We
do not know, for instance, what if anything Paul said to Peter prior
to this public rebuke. nor do we know how Peter responded or how
the matter was actually resolved in Antioch. Yet, it is possible to
say some things for certain on the basis of this narrative. First, Pe-
ter had changed his public behavior by separating himself from
Gentiles when previously he had been accustomed to eating with
them. Although some commentators have taken pains to explain
away this contradiction, Paul attributes it unequivocally to Peter’s
concern for his reputation among the Judaizers.*° Second, Peter’s
example moved other Christian Jews, including even (kat) Paul’s
trusted colleague Barnabas, to become involved in this act of
hypocrisy. Paul’s public rebuke, therefore, was prompted not
merely by Peter’s duplicitous behavior, but by its scandalous effect
on others (“When I saw that their conduct was not in step
[OpBonodSoderv] with the truth of the gospel....”; 2:14). Third,
Paul’s rebuke was addressed to Peter in front of this group with the
goal of correcting their behavior. Fourth, Paul did not engage Peter
in debate on this topic. As Paul explains it, the church had already
spoken on this issue when the leaders in Jerusalem declined to force
Titus to be circumcised (2:3). Fifth, Paul made the matter public
again when he wrote to the Galatians with the hope of correcting
their behavior in what he saw to be an analogous situation. The im-
plication is that even Peter had needed correction on a similar point.

D. 1 Timothy 5:19-20

While St. Paul did not concern himself with the specifics of con-
gregational polity or organizational structure in the congregations
that he founded, he did give general instructions regarding the pub-
lic rebuke of office-holders (elders) accused of public sin. In his
first epistle to Timothy Paul wrote:

Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or

three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke [éAeyxe] them

in the presence of all. so that the rest may stand in fear (5:19-20).

In this brief text Paul sets forth two guidelines, together with the
purpose of public rebuke. First, drawing upon standard Jewish le-

2007 Convention Workbook

gal procedure (Deut. 19:15—217'), Paul says that no unsubstantiated
charges are to be brought against an elder (5:19). “Paul’s point,”
writes J. N. D. Kelly, “‘is that church leaders should not be at the
mercy of frivolous or ill-natured complaints, but should enjoy at
least the protection which any ordinary Jew could claim under the
law.’* Second, those engaged in a pattern of sinful behavior™ must
be rebuked “‘in the presence of all,” that is, publicly (20). It is dif-
ficult to be precise about who the “all” or “the rest” in verse 20 may
be, whether this is a reference to fellow-elders or to the Christian
community more broadly speaking. That there is some kind of pub-
lic rebuke is not in doubt, and, finally, it is intended to be salutary
in its effect: “...so that the rest may stand in fear” (20). That is to
say, the public rebuke is not to be vindictive or advance a vendetta
of some kind, but is to engender a holy reverence before God.

III. The Lutheran Confessions

The Book of Concord contains no specific references to the is-
sue of public rebuke of public sin as such outside the Large Cate-
chism. Implicitly, documents such as the Augsburg Confession and
the Formula of Concord, for the most part, model condemnation of
doctrinal positions rather than of the individuals who originated or
publicized them.

In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon di-
rectly addressed the papal legate, Lorenzo Campeggio, rebuking
him for failing in his duty seriously to consider and to address the
concerns raised in the Augsburg Confession.

You do not sufficiently consider how important a matter religion is, if

you think that whenever people of good will come to doubt some dogma,

it is merely frivolous anxiety. In fact, this doubt can produce nothing but
the most bitter hatred against those who ought to heal consciences but

who refuse to ofter the slightest explanation (Ap XII, 128).

In this case, Melanchthon extends Luther’s criticism of the pope for
failing in his pastoral duty to the Roman hierarchy generally and to
Campeggio in particular. In the final article of the Apology,
Melanchthon addressed a more general rebuke to “the opponents”
in the context of their criticism of the evangelicals for causing
“scandals of public commotions.”

.. nevertheless, because the opponents burden us with such a charge,

their own vices must not be kept secret. How much evil is there among

the opponents in the sacrilegious profanation of Masses! How much dis-
grace is connected with their celibacy! The worship of the saints among

them is clearly and completely idolatrous (Ap XXVIII, 24).?6
Here we observe that Melanchthon used payment for Masses and
celibacy as an offense worthy of rebuke. Such practices were pre-
sent throughout the western church. They are not isolated or local
examples of false teaching and immorality.

Apart from the instance of Campeggio cited above, proper
names or titles are used in the Lutheran Confessions only when they
stand for a group of people who hold a particular belief and who are
most readily identified in this way. The Confessions abound, for ex-
ample, with mentions of the pope and his teaching. Such reference
is meant to be generic, unlike similar references in some of the
polemical writings of Luther and others, and identifies a public
teaching or office. For example, FC SD XII condemns the position
of the Schwenkfelders but makes no mention of Schwenkfeld him-
self—which poses a contrast to Luther’s writings against Schwenk-
feld. The Confessions are concerned to refute and condemn error
publicly, and they certainly do not mean to absolve false teachers
of their false teaching. The Lutheran fathers, however, realized that
each generation would have its share of errorists, but they found it
more necessary and helpful to condemn what was being taught, and
might well be taught again, rather than individual teachers (See, for
example, references to the “new Arians” and “new Antitrinitanans”
in FC SD XIf).