How Should a Disfellowshipped Person Be Treated? Part 5

“Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 9-11)

Regarding this verse The July 15, 1985 Watchtower comments:

“Here John used the Greek word of greeting khaiʹro rather than the word a·spaʹzo·mai, found in verse 13.

Khaiʹro meant to rejoice. (Luke 10:20; Philippians 3:1; 4:4) It was also used as a greeting, spoken or written. (Matthew 28:9; Acts 15:23; 23:26) A·spaʹzo·mai meant “to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome.” (Luke 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 21:7, 19) Either could be a salutation, but a·spaʹzo·mai may have implied more than a polite “hello” or “good-day.” Jesus told the 70 disciples not to a·spaʹse·sthe anyone. He thus showed that their urgent work allowed no time for the Eastern way of greeting with kisses, embraces, and long conversation. (Luke 10:4) Peter and Paul urged: ‘Greet (aspasesthe)

one another with a kiss of love, or a holy kiss.’—1 Peter 5:14; 2 Corinthians 13:12, 13; 1 Thessalonians 5:26.

So John may deliberately have used khaiʹro in 2 John 10, 11 rather than a·spaʹzo·mai (verse 13). If so, John was not urging Christians then to avoid merely warmly greeting (with an embrace, kiss, and conversation) a person who taught falsehood or who renounced the congregation (apostatized). Rather, John was saying that they ought not even greet such an individual with khaiʹro, a common “good-day.” [footnote: Regarding the use of khaiʹro in 2 John 11, R. C. H. Lenski comments: “[It] was the common greeting on meeting or on parting. . . . Here the sense is: Do not even give the proselyter this greeting! Already this makes you a participant in the wicked works for which he has come. John [refers] . . . to a greeting of any nature.”] (The Watchtower July 15, 1985 p. 31 Questions From Readers)

Compare this with the published understanding of 2 John 9-11 in 1974:

“GETTING THE SENSE OF 2 JOHN 9-11

²¹ In his second letter, the apostle John gives this exhortation: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God [that is, is not in union with him, has no fellowship with him; compare 1 John 1:6]. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 9-11) Do the apostle’s words here necessarily apply to all persons who are put out of the congregation for wrongdoing? Or do they necessarily rule out any speaking of words of reproof or exhortation to a disfellowshiped person designed to move him toward repenting, turning around and being restored to the congregation? By considering the context of those words of the apostle we can have a clearer understanding of the sense of his exhortation.

²² Note that in verse seven the apostle John says that “many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” Then John gives the warning to be on guard and not to receive such ones into one’s home, for these are active propagandists of false teachings, deceitful advocates of wrong conduct. They should be given no foothold from which to make further infiltration. One should not even greet them, so as to avoid being a sharer in their wicked works. In this regard, we may note that the common greeting among Jews in apostolic times was an expression meaning “May you have peace.” The Christian certainly would not want to wish peace to the man who was a deceiver and an antichrist. There is, however, nothing to show that Jews with a balanced and Scriptural viewpoint would refuse to greet a “man of the nations” or a tax collector. Jesus’ counsel about greetings, in connection with his exhortation to imitate God in his undeserved kindness toward “wicked people and good,” would seem to rule against such a rigid stand.—Matt. 5:45-48.

²³ Are, then, all who have been disfellowshiped like the persons described in John’s second letter? At the time that they had to be disfellowshiped they were apparently following a course like such ones or at least manifesting a similar sentiment. As the publication Organization for Kingdom-preaching and Disciple-making says on page 172: “Any baptized person who deliberately pursues a course of immoral conduct is actually rejecting the teachings of the Bible, just as much so as one who teaches others contrary to what the Scriptures say about the identity of God, the provision of the ransom, the resurrection, and so forth. (Compare Titus 3:10, 11; 2 Timothy 2:16-19.)” And, if after being disfellowshiped a person tried to justify his immorality before others and sought to sway others to his perverted thinking, he certainly would fit the description given by the apostle John in his second letter.

²⁴ However, not all who are disfellowshiped thereafter follow the course of such ‘deceivers and antichrists.’ They do not all engage in actively promoting wrongdoing, opposing the truth and endeavoring to deceive others into following the wrong course that led to their disfellowshiping. (The Watchtower August 1, 1974 pgs. 465-466 pars. 21-24)

Yet this was all contradicted in 1985. Why? Did a study of the Greek words khairo and aspazomai reveal a better understanding thus necessitating a change?

Simply talking to a person or saying hello does not of itself imply that you agree with him or his cause. It is what one says that determines this.

First of all it is worth noting the expressions of speculation in this article. It is said that a·spaʹzo·mai may have implied more than a polite “hello.” That John “may deliberately have used khairo” and “if so” Then the article presumes to draw a definite conclusion. It is clear the Watchtower is attempting to make a distinction between Khairo and Aspazomai but does such a distinction exist? Whoever wrote this material, evidently overlooked or ignored the account in Luke 1:28, 29

“And coming in, the angel said to her: “Greetings [Gr. Kaire], you highly favored one, Jehovah is with you.” But she was deeply disturbed at his words and tried to understand what kind of greeting [Gr.Aspasmos] this might be.” (Luke 1:28, 29)

Here the angel is said to have rendered khairo to Mary yet she wondered what sort of aspazomai this was. Nowhere does the account say the angel greeted Mary with a holy kiss. This shows that the two terms were used interchangeably.

The Watchtower article admits that khairo meant to rejoice, even citing scriptural proof to that effect: 

Nevertheless, do not rejoice [kairete] because the spirits are made subject to you, but rejoice [kairete] because your names have been written in the heavens.” (Luke 10:20)

Finally, my brothers, continue rejoicing [kairete]  in the Lord. It is not troublesome for me to write the same things to you, and it is for your safety. (Philippians 3:1)

Always rejoice [kairete]  in the Lord. Again I will say, Rejoice! [kairete]  (Philippians 4:4)

Why then do they go on to try and make the case that it relates to some simple greeting such as “Hello?” Khairo corresponds to the Hebrew term shalom, meaning “peace be with you.”

It was used to express favor and acceptance. Recognizing this, some translations, rather than rendering it as simply “greeting,” render it as to “welcome.”

Clearly then, what should be denied an antichrist is not some simple greeting such as “Hello” but an address which implies acceptance and agreement, wishing him favor and success.

Simply talking to a person or saying hello does not of itself imply that you agree with him or his cause. It is what one says that determines this. Certainly one does not become a sharer in his wicked works if one endeavors to refute him or convince him that his course is wrong. On the contrary, the Scriptures show this can be a Christian duty. (Gal. 6:1) Of course if a person persists in his course to the extent of promoting a sect then he should be rejected. But this should be the last resort. (2 Tim. 4:2; Tit. 3:10; Ro. 16:17)

The book God’s Kingdom Rules states:

“In 1904, the book The New Creation^[1] acknowledged that those who persist in wrong conduct pose a real danger of demoralizing the congregation. Back then, the entire congregation would participate in “church trials” to examine cases of serious wrongdoing. However, such occasions were rare. In 1944, The Watchtower showed that only responsible brothers should handle such matters.^[2] In 1952 a Bible-based procedure for handling judicial matters was published in The Watchtower, highlighting a key reason for disfellowshipping unrepentant ones—to keep the congregation clean.”^[3] (God’s Kingdom Rules pg. 114 par. 19)

For decades, since 1952, even elders were not to speak to disfellowshiped persons—unless the individual approached them with a request for reinstatement.

However, a careful reading of the Bible reveals the example set by both Jesus and his Father regarding treatment of sinners. (Eph. 5:1; 1 Peter 2:21) By means of his appointed prophets, God himself took the initiative in communicating with those in Israel who had taken up an extremely sinful, even stubbornly rebellious course, rising up early and speaking. (Jer. 25:3,4) Appealing to them to turn from wrong ways they had engaged in for years. Add to this the fact that God “recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Ro. 5:8)

After almost 40 years, the Watchtower of April 15, 1991 in an article entitled “Imitate God’s Mercy Today”, finally acknowledged this, and an adjustment was made allowing elders to initiate communication with disfellowshiped persons.

But again, the merciful example set by our heavenly Father was understood and published back in 1974:

“THE EXAMPLE OF THE CHIEF ELDER

⁵ Consider the example of Jehovah God’s dealings with those who were once his name people, Israel. They alone of all the peoples on earth were in a covenant relationship with him and they only had been given his word and law. (Ps. 147:19, 20; Rom. 3:1, 2) They frequently proved unfaithful to him, however, and eventually reached the state described in the prayer recorded at Daniel 9:4-19: “We have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled; and there has been a turning aside from your commandments and from your judicial decisions. And we have not listened to your servants the prophets, who have spoken in your name to our kings, our princes and our forefathers and to all the people of the land.”

⁶ Because of this turning aside and gross disobedience, Daniel says that Jehovah “poured out upon us the curse and the sworn oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of the true God . . . bringing upon us great calamity, such as was not done under the whole heavens.” Yes, God took strong judicial action against them, casting first the northern tribes and then the southern tribes out of their land into exile, finally allowing the whole national structure to be overthrown by Babylon. Jehovah, in effect, ‘divorced’ himself from the national organization as if it were a “wife” of his and the “mother” of the individual members of the nation.—Compare Isaiah 50:1; 54:5, 6; Jeremiah 3:8.

⁷ Having taken this strong judicial action against them, did Jehovah thereafter refuse to do anything whatsoever that might contribute toward their being restored to his favor? No, but, instead, he directed words of reproof to them, exhorting them to abandon the wrong course that had led to their disaster. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God said, evidently to those of the rejected northern kingdom of Israel: “Do return, O renegade Israel, . . . I shall not stay resentful to time indefinite. Only take note of your error, for it is against Jehovah your God that you have transgressed. . . . Return, you renegade sons. I shall heal your renegade condition.”—Jer. 3:12, 13, 22; compare Lamentations 3:31-33; Isaiah 57:16-18.

⁸ This expression harmonizes with Jehovah’s statement through the prophet Ezekiel, where he expresses his attitude toward those who still show possibility of repentance: “Do I take any delight at all in the death of someone wicked, . . . and not in that he should turn back from his ways and actually keep living? . . . Throw off from yourselves all your transgressions in which you have transgressed and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, for why should you die, O house of Israel? For I do not take any delight in the death of someone dying . . . So cause a turning back and keep living, O you people.”—Ezek. 18:23, 30-32.

⁹ By exhorting these wrongdoers in this way, was Jehovah God having spiritual fellowship with them, a “sharing” of spiritual good things together as among friends? (Compare 1 John 1:3, 6, 7.) To the contrary, as Jehovah had earlier told them by the prophet Isaiah, if they wanted his friendship again they would have to change. He would not lower himself to walk in their wrong ways and adopt their wrong thoughts. He said: “Search for Jehovah, you people, . . . Let the wicked man leave his way, and the harmful man his thoughts; and let him return to Jehovah, who will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will forgive in a large way. ‘For the thoughts of you people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways your ways,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” (Isa. 55:6-9) To enjoy sweet fellowship with God again, they would have to raise their thoughts and ways back up to the righteous levels to which God adheres and which his Word teaches. Thus they would heed his urging to ‘come and let us set matters straight between us,’ so that their gross sins might be viewed by him as blotted out.—Isa. 1:18, 19.

¹⁰ The parable of the prodigal son provides further insight into Jehovah’s admirable attitude of mercy and considerateness. (Luke 15:11-32) The reaction of the father in the parable upon the return of his wayward son exemplifies in a very appealing way what the heavenly Father, Jehovah, is like. In the parable, the son had left home, gone far off and squandered his time and money in a debauched life, including keeping company with harlots. He came into poverty and hunger and, jolted to his senses, he decided to return to his father. Note, now, what the parable says: “While he was yet a long way off, his father caught sight of him and was moved with pity, and he ran and fell upon his neck and tenderly kissed him.”—Luke 15:20.

¹¹ Thus, when catching sight of his son in the distance, the father did not say: ‘I am not going to move an inch or say one word until that sinner comes right to my feet and formally requests to be accepted back.’ No, but seeing his son heading toward him and, in effect, discerning what was in his son’s mind, the father went to meet him. It was—not before—but after this fatherly expression of pity that the son’s formal asking of forgiveness took place.

¹² This calls to mind the apostle Paul’s reference to “the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance.” (Rom. 2:4) Yes, Jehovah God expresses righteous anger at wrongdoing. But he does not remain angry forever if the wrongdoing ceases. He knows that warm mercy has marvelous drawing qualities to bring repentant wrongdoers back to the point where they can be healed.—Hos. 6:1; 14:1, 2, 4.

¹³ We today therefore do not want to be like the elder brother of the parable who at first was not at all happy with the way his errant brother was received back. (Luke 15:25-32) Rather, we will seek to ‘prove ourselves sons of our heavenly Father’ by imitating Jehovah’s compassionate example. (Matt. 5:44-48) He, as the God of eternity and the “Ancient of Days,” is the Chief Elder, the Great Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. (1 Pet. 2:25) His example is always the right one to follow.” (The Watchtower August 1, 1974 pg. 460-463 pars. 5-13)

Why the change? What happened between the years 1974 and 1991 to cause these excellent examples of mercy on the part of our God to become obscure? Can this in any way be explained as the path of the righteous one becoming lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established? (Pr. 4:18) I was indeed saddened when I learned that the person responsible for writing these articles on disfellowshiping in 1974 was Raymond Franz. A man considered by many witnesses today to be the worst of apostates.

However, even though Jehovah’s merciful example would now be followed, only the elders were allowed to approach such ones.

The 1991 Watchtower article states:

“Former friends and relatives might hope that a disfellowshipped one would return; yet out of respect for the command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, they do not associate with an expelled person. They leave it to the appointed shepherds to take the initiative to see if such a one is interested in returning.” (The Watchtower April 15, 1991 pg. 22 par. 10)

Yet nowhere do the Scriptures themselves place elders in a privileged position, giving them the sole responsibility of such things as encouraging, reproving, or seeking to restore persons who have taken a wrong course. That they may take the lead in so doing does not in any way mean that others are prohibited from doing the same things. To make such rulings reveals a clergy-laity mentality, not that of a Christian brotherhood; it sets two standards of conduct, one for elders, and a different one for all others. The exhortation to be “imitators of God, as beloved children,” is directed to all Christians, not just the shepherds. Certainly of most persons that would be quick to notice a change in attitude of the disfellowshipped one it would be his/her former friends and relatives.

This concludes the series “How Should a Disfellowshipped Person Be Treated?” If you would like to review it again see Part 1.

---

[1] Studies in the Scriptures Volume 6 pg.289

[2] See The Watchtower May 15, 1944 pg. 151

[3] The Watchtower March 1, 1952 pg. 131