“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.” — Romans 16:17-18
As I continue my “thinking out loud,” quick overviews of fellowship scriptures, we come to Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Paul gives this rather abrupt and general warning near the end of the letter to the Romans. Here is what we can ascertain from this passage in regard to fellowship:
- There were some among the brethren in Rome who were causing “division and offenses” (NKJV). It is likely that “obstacles” (ESV), “hindrances” (NASB) or “difficulties” (RSV) is a better rendering of the Greek skandala in place of “offenses.”
- These “divisions and difficulties” are contrary to the doctrine which the Romans had been taught. Contentions that cause divisions, and additions or subtractions from God’s word that place stumbling blocks before the brethren would be contrary to the doctrine.
- These people should be “avoided.” There could be some discussion on whether Paul meant here “disfellowshipping” the offender, or simply avoiding. Other passages will help us clear this up, but it would seem doubtful that Paul would offer an “in between” state of fellowship, where a brother remains in fellowship with the church, but is ignored. Such a thing in itself would be divisive and placing a stumbling block before the brethren.
- Those who cause divisions and offenses do not serve Christ, but rather serve themselves. Teaching what we desire, instead of what we know to be true from the scripture, is self-serving.
- By eloquent speech and flattery they pull Christians away from the form of doctrine to which they had been delivered (Rom. 6:17).
Bottom line: Paul most likely has in mind here to break off fellowship with someone who is causing division in the local congregation. One might imagine, for instance, a person teaching that Mosaic food laws must be maintained. This sort of teaching would cause division and be a stumbling block, especially in a congregation of mixed Jewish and Gentile Christians. This passage could be a two-edged sword, however, since one who disfellowships other Christians for the wrong reasons would also be practicing “division and difficulties.” The bottom line is that Paul wanted the Roman Christians to separate themselves from divisive people who caused difficulties that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ.
In a sentence: Fellowship can be broken in cases of divisiveness and contentious teachings.
by Dell Kimberly
30 Mar 2009 at 16:20
Are you sure the word translated “avoid” means to break fellowship? Is the idea of noting and avoiding the same as break fellowship? Could it be we are reading these verses with a slant that makes them fit into our predetermined views? Just a thought.
by Matt Clifton
30 Mar 2009 at 16:26
Dell,
Is it right to avoid a brother with whom you are in fellowship?
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
30 Mar 2009 at 17:09
Matt,
You will have to ask Paul. It was his decision to avoid the use of a brother who had earlier disappointed him. I don’t think Paul’s decision to put distance between himself and his brother was breaking of fellowship. Avoiding a brother isn’t the same as what took place in 1 Corinthians. The same word that instructs us to mark those that cause division in Romans 16:17 is used to tell us to take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you in Philippians 3:17. Does this imply we should refuse fellowship to those who live according to the pattern?
by Matt Clifton
30 Mar 2009 at 20:10
Dell,
You are referring to Acts 15:36-41, of course, where Paul and Barnabas have a difference of opinion on whether to take John Mark on their journey with them. Paul cited the fact that John Mark had departed from them in Pamphylia and did not complete the mission with them. Barnabas and Paul parted company, with Barnabas taking John Mark with him, and Paul taking Silas with him.
This situation is way different than what Paul was commanding the church in Rome to do. The difference is that in the case with Paul and John Mark, no one was commanded to separate, but rather they “parted from one another.” No fellowship was broken, because John Mark was obviously still in fellowship with the brethren, as may be witnessed by his partaking in the work with Barnabas. Paul did not have an “intermediate state” of fellowship wherein he avoided a brother. Instead, they parted company mutually (although certainly in disagreement). In Rome, however, the entire church there was commanded to avoid any man practicing certain characteristics. So you see, the situations are different.
Sure it is. If an entire congregation of the Lord’s church “avoids” a certain person in the way you are advocating (as the Roman church was commanded to do), i.e. without an actual severing of fellowship, then they have practiced the very sort of division that Paul is preaching against! No, Paul’s point is to sever relations with the unrepentant sinner, or with the divisive man.
Look closely at what you said here, Dell. The word “mark” or “note” means to “notice carefully, keep a watchful eye on.” In one case (Romans 16:17), Paul tells the Christians to “keep a watchful eye on” those who cause division and avoid them. In the other passage (Phil. 3:17), Paul says to “keep a watchful eye on” those who walk according to his pattern, and join them in following Paul’s example. It is not “mark” or “note” that is the operative factor in Romans 16:17, but rather “avoid.”
God bless you.
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
30 Mar 2009 at 23:32
Consistency will not allow Romans 16:17-18 to be a verse dealing with the “withdrawal of fellowship” issue. This is part of the inconsistency problem we see often in the “ultra-conservative” or “legalistic” segment of the Churches of Christ. Good Biblical scholarship demands we determine doctrine based on Scripture instead of determining the meaning of Scripture based on pre-determined doctrine. The key word here is consistency. I do look forward to your thought process as you deal with this topic and application of these Scriptures. Remember Consistency, Consistency, Consistency……..
God Bless, dell
by Matt Clifton
31 Mar 2009 at 08:57
Dell,
Just throwing out the word “inconsistency,” and applying buzzwords such as “ultra-conservative” and “legalistic” is not a substantive argument. In my previous post, it is clear that your claims about the Paul and John Mark situation and your argument on Romans 16:17 via Phil. 3:17 are not valid.
I agree 100 percent that consistency is a key to our Bible study. That is why Romans 16:17-18 has to be viewed as a withholding of fellowship. Here’s why: In 1 Corinthians, Paul s commanding the separation from one in gross sexual immorality. He said he had written to them previously not to associate with anyone who was sexually immoral. He adds in this letter to also disassociate themselves from anyone who is a drunkard, extortioner, idolater, etc. It is clear in the context that Paul is referring to a total separation, not even sharing any table fellowship with them. Now, if Paul tells the Corinthians to withhold fellowship from a drunkard, why in the world would he tell the Roman church to simply “stay away from” those seeking to split the church and/or teaching things that may cause stumbling for a brother? Consistency demands that Romans 16:17-18 be indicative of a withholding of fellowship.
So yes, I highly value consistency in Bible study. And since Paul said he teaches the same things in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17), you can bet that the same withholding of fellowship that he commanded in Corinth was to be practiced in Rome as well.
Thanks, brother.
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
31 Mar 2009 at 11:48
Yes the same standards that apply in Corinth will apply in Rome. You well know we cannot go beyond what is written. The people you do not wish to describe with the description I used above continually make this mistake. The problem that existed in Corinth concerning the man with his fathers wife isn’t anything akin to the problem that exists in Romans. We both know this. To lump these two together is extremely poor scholarship. That disagreement stated, I suspect we will agree most of the time on the remainder of the Scripture you will use. God bless dell
by Matt Clifton
31 Mar 2009 at 13:18
Dell,
Good, I’m glad we agree that we must take scripture only to find these standards. Both the extreme left and extreme right make this mistake, Dell. We all have to strive to stay right down the center of God’s truth.
Well, what we know existed in Rome were teachers who were causing division in the church and placing stumbling blocks in front of the brethren, enticing them with flattering speech and deceiving them. From these types Paul said to avoid. I think a pretty good case has been made that Paul means withdrawal of fellowship.
In Corinth, there obviously existed some cases of this same type of avoidance, but mostly on the grounds of unrepentant sinners in the church, namely those practicing extortion, idolatry, sexual immorality, drunkenness, and covetousness. Paul said to separate from these as well. I have never disagreed that the case with the man who had his father’s wife was not an extreme case. This is why Paul goes into detail. But just because he does not go into detail with the other cases does not mean similar action should not be taken. What was causing Paul to react strongly to this case is that the Corinthians had taken no action to discipline the man! They had disobeyed his previous instructions to them not to associate with the sexually immoral, so now he is forcing a resolution for the good of the church and the sinner.
Insults of “poor scholarship” aside, if Paul teaches the same things in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17), with which you agree, then we have to admit that any of the cases mentioned in the Roman letter or the Corinthian letter would have been enforced in either congregation. Or should have been enforced. The problem in Corinth in 1 Cor. 5 is that the Corinthians were not enforcing what they had already been taught.
Thanks. Still have a long way to go to fill the study out.
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
31 Mar 2009 at 15:07
Matt that isn’t intended as an insult just a statement of very plain truth….God Speed brother.
by Matt Clifton
31 Mar 2009 at 20:59
Dell,
Instead of offering repeated charges of “poor scholarship,” perhaps you could put forth some substantial arguments to prove your point. Based on what has been presented so far, I do not believe your position holds water.
God bless you.
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
31 Mar 2009 at 21:29
With all due respect the standard at this point is your opinion. That isn’t such a strong standard. The basic point of controversy is this, “Will we let Scripture define doctrine or will our preconcieved doctrine determine our interpretation of Scripture?” With Romans 16 you are allowing your preconcieved doctrine to determine the meaning of the text. This is unacceptable scholarship.
On another matter I am interested in your response to Todd Deaver. He has had an assessment of your response to his book posted for a few days now. Unless I missed it you haven’t answered. I would love to see your thoughts.
Keep up the the good work. Thanks brother, dell
by Matt Clifton
31 Mar 2009 at 21:56
Dell,
There are very simple and sound arguments based on scripture there, if you will open your mind and heart to the possibility that you may be wrong. After all, isn’t that what you would have me to do?
I am sorry the material I am presenting does not agree with what you have come to believe. Your charges of “preconceived doctrine” still do not hold water, unless you present some scriptural argumentation of your own.
As far as Todd is concerned, I have seen his article, but have not read it. I am currently focused on my own study, when I get time I will read and respond to his comments. I don’t think diverting the argument to Todd will help your case any.
God bless,
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
31 Mar 2009 at 22:32
lol I don’t think my case needs any help, after all it is the same position Paul held. If I didn’t know you I would say that your mind is made up I ought not confuse you with the facts, but I know you and seriously doubt this is the case. I will take a little time in the next day or so and put a little effort into this. God bless and good night. dell
by Matt Clifton
01 Apr 2009 at 09:09
Dell,
Now Dell, you told me “progressives” are open minded and always willing to admit that they don’t have all the answers! Either your staunch claims to being right are what you really feel and you are not really a “progressive,” or “progressives” are not really all that open minded. Which is it?
I’m just reading the Bible and connecting the dots, brother. I have no agenda to either widen fellowship or shrink it. I’ll look forward to hearing from you.
God bless,
Matt